Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doolphy (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doolphy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doolphy (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)

Last nominations was by SwisterTwister closed as No-consensus where it did not even consider a part of contribution. Alas! there was no participation. Or No one even bother for this one. From last tag of notability to till date, no established anything significant for encyclopedia purpose. Article writes about features. If we even try to improve the writing, one paragraph will be left. Even after one paragraph sources does not establish Corpodepth. Reviews are covered by non-notable entities. Light2021 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article describes the product features, along with links to several at-launch reviews. That is sufficient for basic verification but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a sales brochure, complete with 3 pricing options. Declined as a G11, but I'd say it's almost G11 so a good borderline case to bring here. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found two sources that look reasonably usable as RS:
The founder has won awards and has other articles about him, but those articles each have only one sentence about this product, such as:
If I combine the weight of all these sources with the sources in the article, the total weight still seems borderline for notability. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources presented above qualify as independent coverage in reliable sources. These are press releases that cover the CEO or whatever this person's title is - and rely on company related sources. Also, most of the sources are one word or one line mention of this product. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and not enough for WP:RS. This has not garnered coverage in the main stream press of any language. Wikipedia is not platform for promotion of indiscriminate product information - see WP:ISNOT. Fails WP"GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just a product brochure, complete with a list of features. Sources listed above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial mentions do not wikipedia notability make. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doolphy_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137797098"