Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharpEnviro

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. In evaluating consensus, I have ignored the strange IP !vote ("delete", but indicating agreement with Cunard, who had !voted "keep"). Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SharpEnviro[edit]

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

Unsourced, no assertions of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beyond what is asserted by nom, this would also require an entire re-write to eliminate advert style and peacock language. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage here in Lifehacker, here in TechRepublic, here in stadt-bremerhaven.de, and here in Softpedia. Since Softpedia allows users to download SharpEnviro for free, I don't think it can be disqualified as a source for having a conflict of interest in trying to sell the download.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SharpEnviro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. While the Lifehacker ref is significant RS coverage, this appears to be the only significant RS coverage of this discontinued OS interface. As it is discontinued, it is unlikely that any better coverage will be written. The techrepublic coverage is too brief, only a few sentences part of a list of software. stadt-bremerhaven.de/ is a blog and does not appear to be RS. Download sites are typically excluded from notability consideration because they have a financial interest in promoting the product even when it is offered for free.Dialectric (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Softpedia, an editor wrote in April 2012 summarizing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussions about Softpedia, "It seems that there has been very little or no discussion on this source since 2010. At that time the general consensus favored the source as reliable."
Another editor wrote: "Situationally reliable - Everything published with editorial oversight (i.e. with a staff name attached) should be treated as reliable, but everything else on the site should be considered self-published. Also, reviews should not be used as a source of notability because some of them are done upon request."
The Softpedia review of SharpEnviro was published with the staff name Madalina Boboc attached. The page was last updated August 23, 2014. And an Archive.org link of the page from January 2014 doesn't have the review, indicating that it was not added until between January 2014 and August 2014. SharpEnviro was discontinued November 2011. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that someone asked Softpedia for a review.
Since SharpEnviro is free, I don't see how Softpedia's allowing people to download this open-source program makes a Softpedia review unreliable or unusable in establishing notability.
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Cunard. Not notable, and it's not like the article is A-class either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.139.75 (talk) 09:10, August 6, 2015

Cunard has argued for keeping the article. Also, if you plan to comment on Afd discussions, you may want to create an account if you haven't already.Dialectric (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was accidentally commented out of 31 July daily log page due to edit conflict with previous relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just not enough ot there to establish notability. That Lifehacker article is probably the only thing SharpEnviro has going for it. Otherwise, it doesn't meet WP:GNG Gargleafg (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (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.