Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsPrompt


 * 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. consensus of everybody except the sockpuppets  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

NewsPrompt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable website/browser extension. Fails WP:GNG. Sources given are the website itself, associated media, and user-generated content. No independent reliable sources among them or, apparently, elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable software fails WP:GNG. The "Most useful Chrome extensions" references are all the same post, which appears to be user-generated content posted at 3 different places.  No reliable independent coverage. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSOFT, "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." I believe PC Advisor, Softpedia and BetaNews among others satisfy that condition. Hence this article should be kept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masky2 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They all appear to be user-submitted content, which fails the "reliable" part of "reliable reviews" - see WP:RS. My opinion is that these don't contribute to the notability of the subject and my !vote is still delete. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, References found on softpedia and softwarecrew that independently reviewed and verified the product. Masky2 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masky2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, References found on downloadcrew that independently reviewed and verified the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushneo (talk • contribs) 10:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSOFT, "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." I'm not sure what "reviews must be significant" means, but I'm not sure these are, at least not the one that's on a download site. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, References found on BetaNews which is not a download site and has independently reviewed and verified the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzbehi (talk  —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ruzbehi and Piyushneo are ✅ sock puppets of Masky2. See Sockpuppet investigations/Masky2.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, does not have enough Reliable sources to pass WP:GNG as pointed out by NickW557. Search results in Google News, Books etc are pretty bare, which again proves that this Chrome extension is not that notable. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 13:11, 20 June 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.