Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoop (software) (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Scoop (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product. Slash (weblog system) was also not notable. All coverage is fleeting and certainly not significant. At the very least, this needs to be merged with Kuro5hin (which has serious primary source issues, so that might not be a bad idea). Mythpage88 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per comments and sources found by Dhartung in the previous AfD, followed by a {{trout}} to all those who voted "Keep" last time and then didn't add the sources to the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't find significant enough mention the references listed in the previous AfD discussion to establish notability. Didn't find any new sources either. --Kvng (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to lean towards "delete" now actually - of the sources given, the only one that mentions anything close to a paragraph on Scoop is this one and this book has one line on it. Not really what I'd call "significant coverage". Still, I'll keep looking for a bit. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 8 September 2012 (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.