Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder (assistive technology)

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 redirect to List of screen readers. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (assistive technology)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of screen readers. I found a review article Comparing NonVisual Desktop Access and Thunder that looks reliable, but it is the only reliable source I have been able to find. Without multiple in-depth RS, the topic fails general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. But basic information about the screen reader is verifiable and 'Thunder assistive technology' is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should seek to preserve verifiable content, so I recommend a redirect to List of screen readers, where it is already listed. --Mark viking (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark viking: did you check the sources already within the article? ([1], [2], [3]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have discussed these, too. ScreenReader.net is primary to the makers of Thunder themselves. The Communities in Control source is reliable and has three short paragraphs. The Living with Dyslexia source has one paragraph that looks a little promotional. The AAATE reference looks reliable and has one paragraph not primarily about Thunder. The review article I found and the Communities in Control source are multiple reliable sources, but the latter is marginally in depth at best. My sense is that this topic is not quite notable, but if the consensus was keep, I could see their point of view. If other in-depth RS show up, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2013 (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.