Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomato Torrent

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tomato Torrent

Tomato Torrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable software. PROD was removed by adding "sorces" with a link to the product home page. Searching for sources on books.google shows up a reference that says it exists, a copy of wikipedia, and a coupon for a free copy of the software for a subscription to some magazine. Scholar.google shows non-english sources that are not apparently about this software. Miami33139 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are now multiple sources on the article, all of which are trivial.
  • 1. onsoftware.com, blog and questionable source, not obviously reliable, not obviously unreliable. No matter, because two paragraphs in a list of other products are a trivial mention.
    2. techmixer, blog. one paragraph trivial mention in a directory.
    3. torrentfreak, blog. one paragraph trivial mention in a directory with download link
    4. tuaw, reliable source when they do something significant, this is an entirely routine trivial mention consisting of a paragraph announcing a new version.
    5. pure-mac, unreliable source, this is just a download directory.
    6. macnews.de, routine product version update, one paragraph.
    7. macnn.com, download directory
    8. macapper.com, blog, one paragraph in a list of other products is a trivial mention.

• • Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added 8 references already. Not every reference is trivial, in the aggregate they are not trivial, and its not as if I even tried to add every reference I could find. I had never heard of this product before today, but the sources tell me it was a significantly popular mac bittorrent client. Deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrostWire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinf (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacAmp (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, etc.--Milowent (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Did a search and believe in the aggregate the references are not trivial. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Google news search shows it mentioned in 21 places which Google considers news. I don't consider any mention of software being used, to be trivial. There just isn't a lot you can say about this. It gets mentioned, because its notable. Dream Focus 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So if my model of toaster gets mentioned in the news for being used, it becomes notable? Miami33139 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Good work sourcing the article, Milowent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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.