Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driver Easy

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. Only the article's creator wants this kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Easy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software, previously PROD'd but was the tag was removed by the article's creator. G11 was declined, but it is somewhat notable (not to the point of G11 in my opinion). PROD text was: Non-notable software with almost no reliable sources online or in the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided include several independent articles from reputable websites. Rt25 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing administrator: Rt25 is the creator of the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rt25: Reputable? Perhaps. Reliable as Wikipedia sources? No. Lifewire, TechAdvisor, and Purch Group are the only sources I'd consider reliable and they can't prove notability on their own. Softpedia is a download site, Download.com is a download site, CHiP hosts the download with a Dutch description, FileHippo is a download site, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Aren't those reliable sources notable themselves? And is Alexa Rank helpful for proving notability? Rt25 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many sites are notable without being reliable. Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article but anyone who cited it would not be taken seriously. Alexa isn't a very good way to show notability either. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the website of this topic and it says the company is a Gold Microsoft Partner. Does that add to its notability? Even though every factor alone can't decide the topic's notability, is it possible that all of them combined can make a difference? And I understand that notable sites doesn't have to be reliable. It is still unclear for me that why the sources (except the download sites) aren't reliable. Also, if you look at some of the software Wiki pages, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller, you can see cases that I think is similar to this page -- You get similar types of sources from them. Is it possible that some pages are treated differently than others with regard to notability? Rt25 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sites that aren't download sites are reliable. I just don't think those three sources are enough to prove notability. Those other two topics don't look too reliable either (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I wouldn't be surprised if they got AfD'd too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then are there clear standards or requirements for notability to be adequately proven? What specific types of sources and how many of them are needed (since the three sources are not enough)? Rt25 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG (as a guideline) and WP:NSOFTWARE (as an idea). Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added. Rt25 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: New sources added to help proving the notability of its topic. Some of its original sources were questioned not because they were unreliable but because they were "not enough". And it seems that Wikipedia doesn't have a clear and specific guideline for what are called "enough". Also, there are several pages that have similar sources on Wikipedia, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller. They are pages that an administrator think should be AfD'd but they are NOT! And because of this, this page should be kept for the sake of consistency.Rt25 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a notable software package. The article reads like an advertisement to me. There are some references, but I'm skeptical of their journalistic quality, to put it lightly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this topic can be proven by the references. The article is written in an unbiased tone. The references aren’t ads either but independent articles, which the audience can trust.Rt25 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.