Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intuitive Password

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. Reading the discussion carefully, I find no consensus in this discussion. I can't see any major pointers to keep the article, but still more editors !voteed keep than delete. This could be reopened. (non-admin closure) J 947 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Password[edit]

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

no evidence of notability given, as with some of the other articles in the category which I will nominate separately because it is possible that there may be evidence for a few of them , DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per two lengthy reviews and one short one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

PC Magazine. May 14, 2015.
PC Magazine Australia. June 5, 2014.
PC Magazine. August 8, 2013.

Keep per User:Northamerica1000. It might be a stub, but the references above helps the article to meet minimum GNG requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer Vial (talk • contribs) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

those 3 reviews are all written for the same publication by the same person. I agree that they make up together one suitable reference. We need evidence that more than one person thinks the product important. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a source: [1]. Clearly meets the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

addictivetips.com is a low quality source - it describes itself as a blog, has no clear editorial policy or oversight, and as such may host advertorial content. It is not sufficient to clearly establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--The sources by Northamerica1000 are as good as a lone one per DGG.Same website,same reviewer.The souce cited by Boomer Vial and this one fails scrutiny of WP:RS--with no known editorial policy or oversight and as such prone to typical PR/advertisement.Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews in PC Magazine found by Northamerica1000 and this article in Softpedia. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 24 March 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.