Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drync


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Drync

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am the creator of the page and SmartSE thinks that this I have a conflict of interest which is not a truth. I would like to move it to AFD to deny this claim. Ireneshih (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment., I'm very confused. Are you assuming that nominating one of your own articles for deletion will help you out in the sockpuppet investigation opened against you? I would suggest reading this and responding to the claim on the investigation page instead. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) --Pinging.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: I guess WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Even without sock puppets... This is just another app that tries to establish its notability by spamming product reviews. Ceosad (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So reliable reviews aren't what is required to pass the software notability bar anymore, what's next? Only software that has been used to reach the Moon will be notable? And surely you aren't suggesting that the article should be deleted because there's soapbox drama going on, as a means of punishment towards someone. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep While I don't given much credence to the Notability_(software) essay, determining which software is notable is a tricky and subjective matter (as nearly all non-person,non-book notability discussion are). To suggest that "computer" books or magazines establish notability doesn't make sense in this context (as it would in the case of history or rare birds), so we're left to look at whether multiple credible sources are writing editorial and/or informative content on the subject. It's easy to cast aside software reviews, but they're presently the means by which nearly all modern software is discussed in an objective manner (unless the Wikipedia list of software is to stop in 1999). Older, less-noteworthy software that made it in with the "Wiki land rush" must not crowd out software that is more recent and noteworthy. Queries for drync show extensive writing on it by a number of sources with a style and substance that satisfy WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Wikipedia is not. Any investigation should certainly take its course and any misconduct be dealt with, but that would not seem to bear on a deletion request at this time.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy for now and I'm also thinking keep for this exactly as this is a start but may need to be stored aside until better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister   talk  06:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article seems sourced well enough to establish notability, reviews are what's nearly always requested in software AfDs and there we have them, and we most certainly shouldn't punish the readers (by deleting a worthy-of-inclusion article) for soapbox that's going on among some of its editors. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.