Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftXpand (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 as no one has avidly commented about deleting entirely exactly and this can be improved if need be (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software product. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Aside from the 2008 blog-post and review identified in the previous AfD, the most substantial coverage I can find is a 2009 Jerusalem Post article, which also mentions a Red Herring award that year. There are also a couple of PR announcement items from 2011. These pieces are sufficient to provide verification, but feel too flimsy to demonstrate WP:NSOFT / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see significant coverage:  from Softpedia,  from v3.co.uk (no, I never heard of it, either, but it looks reliable),  from IT Pro,  from ZDNet,  from Chip (German), and  from TechRadar.  I couldn't find anything at PC Magazine or PC World, which is a bit odd for notable PC software, but these other sites all did reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the sources found by NinjaRobotPirate. The number of in-depth reviews is enough for this to pass GNG. sst✈  05:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete itpro.co.uk, zdnet.com are good. SoftPedia and chip.de fail RS as they have no author. v3.co.uk fails GNG because it's not significant coverage. techradar.com is short and the author (PC Plus) is questionable. I couldn't find any better sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What? A full-length article in Chip magazine fails RS because they didn't credit the author?  Where is that part of the guideline?  And the v3 article is not significant?  How is it not significant?  It's a full-length review that spans multiple pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 19 March 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.