Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StationRipper


 * 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. John254 03:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

StationRipper

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to StationRipper. Was was prod deleted previously under WP:SOFTWARE. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. I am also including the following because they have no other purpose outside this article.
 * Hu12 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hu12 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Soft keep - Not a huge product but slightly notable. Was linked to by Slashdot and USA Today when it was still open source back in 2004. Something funny is that this wiki article was created about the same time their site added wiki to their own site according to their news page -ZacBowlingtalk 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, appears to have sufficient third-party coverage... just. Lankiveil (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Yeah, it's pretty promotional but it has third-party sources. Rocket000 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. What coverage there is, does seem to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I read, it was just trivial mentionings of the product, but still, being mentioned in USA Today, Slashdot, and Boston Globe means something. If anything, it shows there's a very very good change more info. is out there. Rocket000 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep My initial reaction was to delete as it is written like an advertisment. However, reading the sources it does look like it is a pretty notable product. However the article should only be kept if it is rewritten. Hammer1980 ·talk 11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree with Hammer1980 ·talk. The product seems to be legitimately noteworthy, and the writing needs to be more neutral.  Tim Ross ·talk  01:19, 27 November 2007 (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.