Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate (software)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karate (software)[edit]

[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)

Promotional article with substantial content additions by username resembling main author. No evidence of notability. No independent third-party WP:RS coverage found in a quick WP:BEFORE - just a few blog posts. The author-resembling username offered a list of blog posts as evidence of notability, but nothing in an independent third-party RS that would cover WP:GNG. An article would need solid sourcing to exist, and there just isn't the evidence that sourcing even exists. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deprodded, thus ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources listed only trivially mention the software, and the article in general reads like and advertisement. The fact that a good chunk of the content comes from an editor with a COI doesn't help it much either. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete went looking and basically only found glancing coverage that proved this was actually something that existed—nothing significant enough to meet the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:58, 11 February 2023 (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.