Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak


 * 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 and redirect to Comparison of feed aggregators. If any information can be found about this software, then it can be entered there. If not, then th entry can be removed from there, and the redirect removed. Black Kite 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NewsBreak

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. I found this, but it is a blog. I found this, but it is self published. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I dont get this Joe.  Sometimes your nominations are way off. Book mention, "is one of the best RSS readers" here, ok, arguably not the most indepth, but still RS. How do you know Clinton Fitch is self-published , not obvious to me; 10,000 Ghits  for "Ilium Software NewsBreak"; review presumably published by Pocket PC — September, 2005 (page 35) ; comparative review "News Aggregators on Your PDA: Ilium Software NewsBreak vs. Spb Software House Insight" here .  This has no resemblance to your sort of standardized statement "I can't find significant coverage for this software".  What is going on? Power.corrupts (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the home page. What's going on? There are editors that have better luck than others on finding sources for certain articles (Why do you think AfD exists)?. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This entire article consists of one sentence that says it is a news reader. Wikipedia will have lost nothing by not having this sentence in a standalone article. Sources uncovered by Power.corrupts are good sources, but not significant. If deleted, I have no prejudice against this being re-written in the future if sources turn up. I think it is dying, so the fleeting coverage that already exists will be all that is ever available. Miami33139 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if it is dying or not, in fact I had no idea this thing existed. What matters is that there are RS.  I did not claim to have located all sources, I stop when i have refuted that no RS exist.  Wikipedia is always WP:IMPERFECT - presently being in a bad shape is NO valid reason for deletion. See also Alternatives to deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that no reliable sources exist. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is imperfect, and there is one sentence. Why does this single sentence need to stand alone? This single sentence would better present itself and it's content in a more substantive article, regardless of how many RS. If this article is a substantial subject, the matter can be broken out again later. Please answer, why should one sentence on this subject be kept as a standalone article? Miami33139 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To Miami. Per policy, see WP:PRESERVE information. Many, many articles start as one-sentence stubs.  If they are deleted merely for being stubs, they will never have opportunity to grow.  Maybe the information could go into another article, the Software company Ilium Software is presently a redlink, dont know why, seems notable to me.  I have no interest the subject and wont start it, bottom line though is that I see no reason to delete based on a one-sentence-only rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To Joe. The unfortunate issue about the notablity guidelines is that the qualifier "significant" is entirely subjective. This is one of the reasons why the community has repeatedly rejected it being promoted to policy.  You argue it be deleted from negative evidence, that you were unable to find significant coverage.  I reply that I (easily) found more than you, and stopped when I thought it was "significant". Power.corrupts (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most nominations are done because the nominator couldn't find coverage that he/she thinks is enough. You don't care about notability. All that you care about is verifiability. Your problem is with most editors, not just me. Joe Chill (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged  UK  19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * WP:PRESERVE does not ask us to keep non-notable stubs. "Preserving information does not necessarily mean preserving subjects or topics." Similarly, our stub guidelines still require sourcing and warn the article will be deleted without it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We already mention this software under List of feed aggregators and Comparison of feed aggregators, so "delete" is not an appropriate outcome: if we decide not to keep a separate article with this title, then we should have a redirect. And indeed having a redirect is consistent with both WP:N (because un-notable things should not have separate articles) and WP:PRESERVE (because all the information in the article is still available on Wikipedia).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I created the original article, intending to write a whole lot on it - but never got around to it. That was 3 years ago, and noone else seemed to have picked it up in the meantime, so I think it's fair enough to go ahead and delete it - it can always be recreated if there's more information which can be added.
 * OTOH, it's not doing much harm leaving it there, and there is precious little software on the Wikipedia on this subject for Windows Mobile devices. Cralar (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the article doesnt actually say anything other than what it is. The one sentence main content has not changed since 2006. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (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.