Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrontPageIt


 * 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 delete. joe deckertalk 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

FrontPageIt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm suggesting this article for deletion because it fails the notability criteria. FrontPage.it is a very new application with version 1.0 only having been released on iTunes on July 30 2015. When you log into their application you see that their most popular category (viral videos) has only 1.200 followers, the second most popular (technology) having only 165 followers. FrontPage.It might be a great product - I don't know - but at this stage it is not a notable product. I also feel that, while it has been reviewed on a number of technology focused websites, it fails to show that there is significant coverage of the product. The reviews basically say "here is cool new product you should check out" - which is different from being a notable product. I originally suggested this article for deletion through he "proposed deletion" tag, but the author disagreed - see talk page. In his response the author indicated that he expects the product to become more notable in the coming months, but in my opinion that is not good enough since subjects should already be notable when added to Wikipedia. On the plus side, the author quickly fixed issues related to puffery. Timoluege (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep this page because it is already notable. I said it will become even more notable as time will pass. When a product has full reviews not just mentions in credible websites it means it is notable. There are many articles on wikipeida with 5 references. I have used 14. I used this service and it made me think it should have a wikipedia article. So article is notable what you should focus is if you object to any neutrality so that it may be written right. --Skh38 (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Draft and userfy for now as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. and do not userify or move to draft. The refs are all of them unusable for notability--even more so than usual in this tuype of article.    The Huffington Post ref is copied from the firms web page, and says so. (I've been having my doubts about the use of that publication  to show notability even when it doesn't blatantly reprint  an advertisement to look like an article --it seems to be an easy mark for spammers and press agents--they merely have to convince one of their columnists).   The Forbes article is not about the product, and just includes a quote from the firm's ceo as one sentence in a very  general  article.' it literally says nothing at all about the product--not even what it does. Social media today has a short mention among many other products; tech.co is again a brief part in an article about miscellaneous products. techjournal is at least about the product, but it reads like an advertisement--an advertisement filled with puffery from beginning to end. Etc., etc.  The article was made using tricks to avoid New Page Patrol: U:Skh38 replaced  a good redirect from "FrontPage" to Microsoft Front Page by the first version of  this article, and  then moved it from FrontPage to FrontPageIt. This is a manner of creation which makes  me wonder about "I used the service..." as an explanation for why a spa created an article. It's difficult to think it in good faith, and just in case it applies I remind the spa about our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure   DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. I independently came to the same conclusion then saw his comments - he says it better than I was going it. This is promotional and most of the coverage is in passing and cribbed from a press release. The Tech Journal piece is the only real coverage and even that is not great. The redirect of FrontPage to Microsoft Front Page will need replacing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  09:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. The coverage that exists seems to be directly copied or referenced from primary or original sources, which does not meet the criterion required to establish them as reliable. There is one source that I count as reliable, but it does not constitute significant coverage, which is required in order to meet WP:GNG and assert notability.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:05, 29 November 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.