Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SyMenu


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

SyMenu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising, non-notable software product. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - poorly constructed page could simply be explained by a new editor, but I had no success finding news coverage. I did find some reviews, and while I think PC Advisor looks legitimate, the others don't entirely convince me of their reliability: , , , and . If those sources are more reliable than I realize, I'd of course be happy to change my vote to Keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Advertising". SyMenu is not searching for advertising because it's a freeware software, its web site has not advertising at all, it is a software that serves the community. Please read here to understand what the real SyMenu approach is. "Non-notable software product". We are talking about the USB launcher with the largest freeware program collection in the world (more than 1.200). Isn't it enough to classified the software as relevant in Wikipedia? Moreover SyMenu won a lot of awards from several web site. "No success finding news coverage". Please note that PortableApps.com, the main SyMenu competitor, doesn't mention a lot of external references outside of self references to its web site (http://portableapps.com). So what's the point? Is it better to remove the real external links and to add new links to the SyMenu own web site to be reliable at the same level? Epikarma (talk) 6:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * References based on reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines) are needed to estabilish notability. That other article has bad sources too, is not good argument for AfD - quite otherwise... Pavlor (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pavlor is right. So let's speak about the external sources reliability. Yvarta asserts that PC Advisor looks legitimate and the other web sites are not. Let's try to define this concept through a measurable principle and not through a personal feeling. Let's see the web sites global ranks thanks to http://www.alexa.com:
 * PC Advisor 2034
 * BetaNews 11771
 * cnet.com 154
 * softpedia.com 1441
 * pcauthority.com.au 80091
 * According to Alexa except for PC Authority and BetaNews the other sources are more popular/reliable than PC Advisor. Epikarma (talk) 9:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Popular≠reliable!!!! See WP:RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL; article consists almost entirely of feature descriptions. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - even though advertising of a free product isn't quite as sinister as advertising something with a cash value, I still think this article reads like a combination of an advertisement and an instruction manual. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:53, 17 April 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.