Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appbox Pro (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appbox Pro[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)

Does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG as reliable sources could not be located on the subject, previous AfD did not have substantial arguments towards keeping IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several reviews here and here. @NerdyScienceDude: wrote in 2010: "It has been featured as the top paid app in the App Store a few months ago. It has also been downloaded over a million times." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link two of them you find the best for notability? Pavlor (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am slightly on fence, but these all seem to be indepth coverage of the app: Macworld [1], 148 Apps which was deemed as situational to use per WP:VG/RS [2]. There is also this [3] and this coverage in book [4]. It's not really much notable, but it doesn't seem to be WP:BARE notable either. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is two sentences. The app has a total of six reviews on the iTunes App Store. The reviews mentioned above are likely paid coverage. No reliable sources. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84percent (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The possible references found look pretty sparse to me; the kinds of basic review you'd expect when any new app launches, and nothing that suggests anything particularly notable about this one. Mccapra (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2019 (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.