Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky Patcher (3rd nomination)


 * 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. If a subject lacks the coverage needed to show notability, then the reason for that lack of coverage is immaterial. RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucky Patcher
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An undisclosed paid article on a mobile app that fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Plenty of mentions, but no in-depth coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Ping as participants of prev AfD(s). GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per what I said last time "Sources are not reliable or don't meet Notability (organizations and companies), as they are narrowly focused or not published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications. Fails to meet WP:N."
 * Justifying that, the sources in the article are:
 * Their own website
 * Medium (unreliable due to being a blog)
 * GadgetHacks Assuming the site is reliable, not indepth, a short how to that fails Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context per WP:PRODUCTREV
 * Droid Panic Looks to be a blog, and similarily fails being in-depth.
 * Hack Read again, similarily fails being indepth. A one paragraph how to.
 * Malavida no indication from the site that it has an editorial staff or is reliable in any way.
 * There's a shedload of similar blogy "how-to" coverage and PR coverage, but no independant in-depth (and reliable) coverage that allows us to write a reasonable neutral article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Article also fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCT. This is the second go-around in a short time, the third if you count the procedural close. I advocate salting to prevent recreation. Ifnord (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * srz, you want to salt something because it was speedy deleted once? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. That's not what I wrote. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what you wrote..Mosaicberry (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone has "added some references" which consist of..some youtube videos and a wiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no significant recognition from news or other 'reliable' sites because it's illegal and they can get in serious trouble for promoting it, something you editors don't seem to understand...
 * And WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that it is paid?? I'm waiting for an answer lol. If you would take a few minutes you can find out it is extremely popular, just with almost no 'official' recognition. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One good reason to keep the page is that when you search for Lucky Patcher, you won't be able to tell what is the correct site, making the Wikipedia sidebar or result very helpful to find out more about it. Mosaicberry (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Mosaicberry (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This page is very well referenced compared to Kingo Root, which is also highly suspected of being malware. I think that page should be considered for deletion first being similar. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.17.51 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)  — 190.58.17.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Yes lots of concerns. The attempt to use user generated refs is not appropriate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as noted in the last AfD, the sources exist at the bare minimum.
 * The standard for notability is not whether the sources used are in-depth coverage, but whether the sources exist to show notability and future use bringing the article up to standards. As it sits on :en the article is poor - but the sources exist to make it better. Search Google's news, books, scholar, etc and there are many good cites, many which aren't in English. Several book sources on Google show significant coverage but don't have a live preview. Particularly would be Android developer books that have sections on using Lucky Patcher as a test against your own code. WP:DEADLINE, eventually, blah blah blah.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * The software isn't illegal itself, but it does allow things that would be considered illegal.
 * The article has at least two dozen editors, unless GSS wants to identify one as being a paid contributor and the other two dozen as flunkeys, stop making this claim because it is insulting to the good faith contributions of everyone involved.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Out of all two dozen editors, 12 are single purpose registered accounts +23 IPs who made no or a couple of edits outside this topic and rest of the users made some maintenance edits excluding you. There is no doubt that user Godisthebestone was paid to create this article and was blocked for abusing multiple accounts so, I don't see anything "insulting" here. GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for identifying who the paid editor was. I've re-written or removed any text they added to the page. This is the first time you've identified that user despite being asked multiple times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc James and some others claimed I have been paid to write some of the page, I have no clue why they think this, also don't you think if ChelpuS or someone else from Lucky Patcher wanted a page for it they would pay an admin or at least someone who had many edits, rather than someone like us who have very few edits? Mosaicberry (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By "someone like us" who do you mean by "us"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean some of the other editors like me who have few edits outside of Lucky Patcher. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One book appears to be self-published and I can't see any evidence that they other two book hits are reliable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just from Google Scholar I have found several more books that appear to be decently reliable. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like nothing more than a passing mention. Could you select one or two of these titles with rather more in-depth coverage? Pavlor (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FitIndia  Talk 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - There aren't significant coverage on this article. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Bonadea's comment above that reads Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 04:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According To Google, the definition of notability is “the fact or quality of being notable.”, and the definition of notable is “worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.” As stated before the program Lucky Patcher is very popular and worthy of attention as one can see if one takes a few seconds to check, so either you or Google have something wrong. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia refers to WP:N. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aware of that, just stating maybe you should change it to something like ‘Reliability’ since the definition is wrong :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.