Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puck App


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Puck App

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. No discussion of the subject in reliable sources. — usernamekiran (talk)  04:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: However much a "puck app" sets my teeth on edge, I'm at a complete loss as to how the nom could believe that the likes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Winnipeg Free Press or Canadian Business aren't reliable sources.   Ravenswing   23:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the issue isn't one of sources. The issue is that mobile apps aren't inherently notable, and there's no sign this is more notable.  The press coverage is mostly promotional/launch related, there's no sign the app ever was widely used, or that this is more notable than, a different mobile app named "Puck". Power~enwiki (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Quite aside from that is the issue -- the nom's words are unambiguous -- what does any of that matter? We're not talking about "inherent" notability, this is a GNG pass, pure and simple, and notability on Wikipedia fundamentally flows from whether or not a subject's discussed at length in reliable sources, period.  Whether this is more or less "notable" than other such apps, whether there's a similarly named app, or how widely this is used, all those are WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT arguments that form no part of deletion policy.  Heck, if the app never existed at all, that wouldn't be a bar. Category:Vaporware   Ravenswing   16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

from my recent contributions/experience I've got one question: why can't wikipedia editors summarise all the guidelines and then follow the summary instead of doing that, they seem to follow every policy to the letter. They are called "guidelines" for a reason. They are not golden rules. We are humans, with logic. — usernamekiran (talk) (log) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Indeed we are, and before we should ditch a clear notability guideline, we need a really good reason to do so. No case has been made that this article is so injurious to Wikipedia that we need to ignore the fundamental guideline used to assess the notability of subjects to do so, or that you seemingly ignoring WP:BEFORE was called for.   Ravenswing   17:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * nope. I did proper work before nominating it for deletion. So we should be WP:LAWYER unless the article is eligible for speedy? — usernamekiran (talk) (log) 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if you claim that there's no discussion of the subject in reliable sources, you didn't. Either you didn't bother looking at the sources, or you didn't bother with verifying that they're reliable.   Ravenswing   20:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to make false claims. I did it adequately, and did not find anything. — usernamekiran (talk)  21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Original creation of the article clearly has reliable sources where the 'puck app' is the subject of the article. Inline citations, easy to access stories on a small page.  I assume I am missing some other criteria for deletion, lack of reliable sources does not make sense.18abruce (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see a basis for deletion. Apps may not be inherently notable, but this one passes GNG based on significant coverage in reliable sources (which are already cited in the article).  And while GNG is a guideline that doesn't always need to be followed, no one has presented a good reason for not following it here nor am I aware of one  (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason). Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - every reference is a primary source, contemporaneous with news coverage of its launch. There is no secondary coverage of this app, meaning that it will fail WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Errr ... the Winnipeg Free Press? Canadian Business? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? You may be as unclear as to the definition of a "primary" source as the nom is of reliable, independent sources which provide "significant coverage" to subjects.   Ravenswing   04:25, 11 June 2017 (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.