Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screenpresso

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenpresso[edit]

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

Non-notable product. All of the "references" are either how-to articles or offer little coverage and none meet WP:RS. I can't find any other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a concrete example of a correct reference ? Thanks, --Techwritter31 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS, which Walter Görlitz linked above, and WP:GNG.Dialectric (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs are blogs/how-to/download sites, or very brief reviews, and do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, with the possible exception of the Lifehacker article which is longer and comes from a RS, but alone is not sufficient to establish notability. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (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} 04:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Dialectric says, the Lifehacker review is the most substantial (indeed the article has two separate links to it), but neither that nor anything else that I can see amount to more than mundane product reviews, and don't demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who knows, this might be the next $16B app, but presently it fails wp:gng. The 3-4 paragraphs in lifehacker don't convince me otherwise. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2014 (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.