Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoolApk

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoolApk[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)

Non-notable website with WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources that are mostly from the website itself. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a copy of 2 times deleted page Xiaolvshu, less than a day ago. Page should have been A7. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, Websites, and China. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There are sources like this, but it very specifically says on the bottom that there's no editorial oversight and that it's just hosting user-submitted content. This is user-submitted content on a Slashdot clone, this is a press release, and this has a passing trivial mention (if that, I'm not 100% sure it's even talking about this article's subject in that passing mention). There's fifteen sources in the article but none with significant coverage in a reliable third-party source. However I don't speak Chinese so I can only search so much with the 酷安 that's given in the article, but from what I can find there's nothing that would demonstrate notability. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%85%B7%E5%AE%89

CoolApk has zhwiki for long time. DaHiicu (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but the sources on zh:酷安 are the same as the sources at CoolApk so there's nothing there that would change the notability issue. (Interestingly, the ja:酷安 version has been tagged as a copyvio/attribution issue and looks to be headed towards deletion as well.) - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Ku'an Forum plays an important role in the minds of digital enthusiasts in China.

https://www.zhihu.com/question/337867255

https://www.zhihu.com/question/482655728

https://www.zhihu.com/question/20658510

about jawiki: editor is lazy(copy them directly) DaHiicu (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts do not show notability. The issue here is the lack of notability; that the article's subject has a forum associated with it does not address that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/50560649

CoolApk web version has only a little selected content. It is actually an application.

https://www.coolapk.com/editorChoice

coolapk team 's official video account http://space.bilibili.com/386137684 DaHiicu (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.coolapk.com/ DaHiicu (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any sources that pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : It is clear that the editors have added many sources of citation unrelated to the content of the entry in order to preserve it. For example, this cites a web page as a source, but this is just a software download page and has nothing to do with the content of this paragraph, even though the editors have named the citation "Ku'an History". ManunChan (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It appears that this is a shared link to a post in the software, but apparently it is not accessible via the website and the archived link does not allow access to the original article at all. The original post has also been removed. I don't think this is a valid source. In short, this entry is full of invalid sources like this one. ManunChan (talk) 10:57, 18 January 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.