Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insight Timer

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Timer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable software with little to no coverage in WP:RS. The citations to Time and the NYT are short snippets of list articles, not significant coverage. Other sources include the company's own website and interviews with the author. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a quick Google search and found mostly press releases and brief mentions in "new years resolution" (like [1]) or "best meditation app" (like [2]) articles. The exception was https://www.mindfulreturn.com/insight-timer/, but I'm not sure they are a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from Forbes and Sydney Morning Herald Editor B (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes contributor articles are generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The Sydney Morning Herald article is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG alone; it's primarily an interview with the founder and is very nearly a human interest story. But if there were more sustained coverage like it, preferably that did more than document the small business' existence, it might pass. FalconK (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some of the sources are definitely credible (the NYT is the strongest that I see), none of them seem to be primarily about this app. The NYT, Time, and Yahoo news articles, for example, include it in lists of several similar apps. The Mashable article does seem primarily focused on Insight Timer (and is not a guest piece; the author's profile says "Camille is an editorial news intern at Mashable"). However, I don't think this single source (and one Forbes contributor blog post) really establishes notability for what, according to every other source, seems to be fairly WP:MILL. jp×g 14:20, 16 January 2021 (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.