Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JotterPad


 * 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. Some users herein have stated that the depth of coverage is insufficient and that the topic does not meet notability guidelines, while others have stated that the topic meets notability guidelines and provided some source examples. There was some discussion about sources, with arguments and counter-arguments, but much of this is opinion-based (e.g. "... strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject...", "Gizmodo is a largely known host of PR...", "Oh really? Who exactly decided this? You seem to believe everything is a host of PR"). In addition to the sources presented in the discussion, one of the users opining for retention also referred to "...other coverage" to qualify their stance, but did not present said coverage. Of note is that a user opining for deletion stated that the article comprises "spam", but others did not concur with this notion or state that the article functions as an advertisement. Another user opining for deletion refers to this topic as a company and as an organization, qualifying deletion in part by citing WP:CORPDEPTH criteria that is applicable toward organizations. However, this topic is not an organization; it's a mobile app, which is a software product and the thesis of the article. While WP:CORPDEPTH is applicable toward products, it is possible for a topic to meet WP:GNG while simultaneously not meeting the subject-specific criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH, and again, this is a product, not an organization or company. Also, as a sidenote, note that WP:PRODUCT states "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." Overall, the discussion is mildly leaning toward a deletion outcome, but ultimately a no consensus closure is the most accurate close relative to the discourse that has transpired herein. North America1000 07:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

JotterPad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing actually genuine for independent notability and substance as the listed sources are only announcements, listings and mentions with none of it satisfying our pillar policies; there's also no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. SwisterTwister  talk  18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The Washington Post did review it . Gizmodo listed it as one of the "Essential Apps" of the month.   D r e a m Focus  00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "One of essential app or the month" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That essay has nothing to do with this at all. Also the article was from February of 2015.   D r e a m Focus  22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that Gizmodo is a largely known host of PR so especially such a triviality as "One of the month" is hardly convincing. The one WP review would still make it thin. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Who exactly decided this?  You seem to believe everything is a host of PR.  Do you honestly believe there is a chance they took money somehow to put them on the list?   D r e a m Focus  03:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think the WaPo, Gizmodo and other coverage gives enough inherent notability, but the tone needs some reworking and it needs expansionSouth Nashua (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Companies need to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and I do not see enough sources to satisfy it here. The Gizmodo source is an inclusion in a list of similar items which is considered trivial coverage for purposes of CORPDEPTH. That leaves the WashingtonPost which is in itself a very brief review. This doesn't add up to the level of indepth coverage required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage of this app wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For example
 * Gizmodo - Coverage in a list of similar apps. According to our guideline, inclusion in lists of similar organizations is considered trivial coverage.
 * Washington Post - Short review and not enough on its own
 * Other sources such as Fastcompany, NYT - all of these are lists of similar apps and not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Other than these, there don't seem to be any reliable sources available and it seems like this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The two sources you listed are clearly dated 2015 in their links. Also Too Soon is just an essay, and not relevant here.  That concerns covering things that don't exist yet.   D r e a m Focus  01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my main argument is that the coverage doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For a company, in-depth coverage is required. (Brief coverage in a list of similar items is not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (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.