Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaMan (2nd 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Non notable software that simply fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. WP:BEFORE does not bring me much except download links and blogs or forums, with books being about Mediaman Infotech. The references included in the article are the one in the AfD which are:
 * 1. Official website (WP:PRIMARY source)
 * 2. A review written by a person named Howard and has a link posted at the end of it as a promotional part. Enough said about the site's reliability.
 * 3. This one is a good reference, covers the subject in detail, is reliable. But not enough on it's own.
 * 4. Is a blog as said on the https://www.musicbymailcanada.com/index.html which makes it not a reliable source, nor it has any author attached to it (not a surprise). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Due to the following reviews, I believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.
 * (Softpedia)
 * (Neowin)
 * (CNET / Download.com)
 * (TechAdvisor / Techworld / IDG)
 * (Lifehacker)
 * (Softpedia)
 * MarkZusab (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires significant coverage. For the Neowin one, I said it in my nom above, the review itself is PR per the link placement and the end and (at that time) did not have an editorial control at least (because of the author's name in the article, making it blog like). CNET one, eh. Is it really a WP:SIGCOV? I dont see much about the software itself here and is written by Download.com staff. Techadvisor and Techworld are the same one, but it is a solid one to use, thanks for finding it. Lifehacker reference is not a WP:SIGCOV, only the first two sentences are about the software itself, also a blog making it unreliable. And the second Softpedia reference is the download page from which content already exists in the first one anyways. Even with Softpedia and Techraptor reference, I feel it is too borderline for me to consider withdrawing the nom. If someone finds something else, I will immediately do that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 9 February 2019 (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.