Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qwitter

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. Consensus seems to be that the coverage mentioned here and cited in the article is not sufficient to bestow notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qwitter[edit]

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

Found a writeup on cnet and some blogs, original thread claimed to be "controversial and covered by cnn and wired", but I have found no indication that either claim is true. -Zeus-^u|c 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found this link which mentions about CNN [1] Teckko (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer - above is article creator) - a passing mention does not count as coverage, and you don't even have the original article. -Zeus-^u|c 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was very easy to find CNN coverage (e.g. qwitter site:cnn.com search) in two articles; I added both. Feel free to remove them if they strike you as passing mentions. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability, no non-trivial references in non-blog media, doesn't meet WP:WEB in any other way.--Res 2216 firestar 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Res. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some references supporting the 'controversial' claim. Qwitter attracted notice from ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, WebProNews, CEO Magazine, and others. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The controversy comes from violating Twitter's terms of service, and this article is pretty much designed to do one thing; attract eyeballs and attract advertisers. Doesn't meet any notability. Nate • (chatter) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (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.