Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palringo (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 Keep. Nobody other than the nominator advocated for deletion, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Previously deleted non-notable software. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has a cnet Editor's Review here which I've seen qualify as WP:RS in other articles. Note this review also post-dates the previous AfD. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could You please draw examples of any review in Download section of CNET attributed as WP:RS? To date download sites didn't qualify. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/CDBurnerXP was kept partly because of the cnet Editor's review. It was the specifically the fact an Editor reviewed it that qualified it as reliable - user reviews don't count. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this example suggests that CNET ref wasn't enough to keep. The nominator withdraw the entry only after new references appeared (though I still wouldn't, as none of them seems reliable). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note, that this review is a clear advertisement, and the reviewer has an interest in advertising this software (thus advertising CNET Downloads usage), so I would completely discard it. The only [semi-]reliable source to date is the article in The Inquire, which is not enough, especially given The Inquire's reputation. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The review mentions self-registration as a drawback and suggests Palringo's competitors are better, which wouldn't appear on an advert. Also there is a MacWorld Editor review here which concludes "either program is worth a shot, but [not] a program I’m likely to continue using on my iPhone." -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This one seems to be yet less reliable, as the Mac Publishing Community Standards indicate that they have no editorial control at all and the author of review is a "regular contributor". Also note, that the site features 2115 reviews (as of this writing). Do you think there are 2115 notable iPhone apps out there? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Most CNET download pages do not have a review by the staff. Normally it is just a product description from the company. Macworld appears to be reliable. What do you even mean by "regular contributor"? His profile page does not say that and the article does not say that. I am confused about what you mean because he is a staff member, not any regular editor. The issue is not whether all of them are notable. The issue is whether other sources covered those thousands also. I also found book coverage -, , and . SL93 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PC World Australia review - . SL93 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These references really seem convincing. I withdraw nomination. Am I entitled to close discussion as withdrawn? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2012 (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.