Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getmii (app)


 * 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. czar 07:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Getmii (app)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient evidence of notability. This article has a ton of references (too many, really), but almost none of them constitute significant coverage in reliable sources.

The only reliable source I see is the Boston Globe article; however, it's a very brief, broad overview of the app, and hardly makes for significant coverage. The other reference that might constitute a reliable source is the Buzzfeed article; however, that link is actually a community-written blog post rather than a reliable article by the Buzzfeed staff. The rest of the sources seem to be entirely questionable/unreliable. Iago Qnsi (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the same reasons Maxwell Meyer was. Non-notable company and only sources aside from the one mentioned above are in passing (like an alumni newsletter or pages that more or less just copy and paste the press release.) Also, here is the previous [|deletion discussion] and there are a few more mentions now but do not seem to come from reliable sources.  Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  Talk
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Reads like a cleverly written press release trying to hide its promotional nature. Non-encyclopedic tone, and sources don't tend to support notable content beyond that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2016 (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.