405:. They (all of them) include exactly the same text - probably release notes distributed with the software. If not, three of them have copied the first which means, editorially, they are not independent. I would be inclined to think the notes were developed by the company / creator. Either way, they are clearly not reliable sources at all. They certainly couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Besides which, they are all the same text, so could only ever be considered "one source" as per
377:. Significant: "address the subject in detail", they all have lots of details about how the software works; "more than a trivial mention" those are pages dedicated to this subject. Reliable: These are all popular sources for news/software/info about the category (android apps). Sources: They are all secondary sources (as is google). Independent: they work with many apps and aren't tied to any particular app, nor the author.
691:- I can find no independent significant coverage about this app. The AppBrain link just shows me a link to a directory entry and no actual editorial review. Ditto for Androidzoom, Androidpit, and Android.informer which are all essentially software directory listings providing a download link and a way for users to submit reviews. Those are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. --
437:- you are correct, the article was written by me, William Seemann. None of the cited pages in this thread or the main article were authored by me. I have no account or control over the content published on those sites. What "constitutes" notable software? The arguments behind marking this page for deletion seem arbitrary.
511:
The "by" portion is the author of the software. The software is written by me, hence "by
William Seemann". The article(s) name me as the author of the software, not the article. Also, my comment in no way implies I'm using Knowledge for anything other than it's intended purpose, to inform people.
481:
though I accept that might be in reference to the software itself, rather than the written text, as is the case with the others. It's a moot point, really - the download points all basically carry the same description, couldn't be considered editorially independent and (if they were a "source" at
543:
Yep, as I said - happy to accept they were posted by someone else and that the software is written by you. But they are still ostensibly the same text which must have come from someone along with the software itself. Four independent websites did not list the software and come up with
653:
Normally with a balanced headcount and mediocre sources, I'd be inclined to close as "no consenses", but the sources are more like lousy than mediocre to me, and the headcount suffers from small number statistics, so another go-round seems worthwhile to me.
258:
guidelines specify that "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown". It is also discussed in the following "reliable sources" that discuss various android programs.
197:
Non-notable app. This looks like a great app, it appears to work well for the many people who use it and they like it. It does, however, not appear to have received the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by
166:
672:
the references above all seem to be review sites, which list many other app. There are 200 audio and music apps reviewed on AppBrain, so listing there does not give an indication of notability to me.--
486:. These are basically descriptions of the product on sites where you can download it, not "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". The comment above also confirms Knowledge is being used for
340:
would not necessarily confer "significance" anyway. Of the four sources above, most could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. Regardless, a couple of them are
119:
160:
603:
344:
by a "William
Seemann" and the others note "William Seemann" is actually the developer of the software in question. The article in question here was written by
254:
50,000 users in the last month (on the google play store which is a non-primary source). If you do not see this as sufficient for notability, remember that the
202:. It may be there are sources out there in non-English languages or maybe under a different name, but I'm not seeing them. It may be a case of
126:
306:
283:
92:
87:
17:
528:
96:
181:
278:
148:
79:
712:
listed in the article which was not mentioned, but the blog for a 2nd year comp sci major is not a reliable source. --
206:
and the world will recognize the genius of the app shortly; if that's the case I'd encourage the creator to ask for a
742:
40:
142:
590:
464:
314:
215:
738:
561:
499:
418:
365:
138:
36:
721:
700:
681:
663:
645:
615:
594:
564:
532:
502:
468:
446:
421:
386:
368:
318:
268:
238:
219:
61:
273:
83:
677:
516:
456:
234:
57:
253:
guidelines, I believe this is notable as it is significant to the field as evidenced by having : -->
520:
438:
345:
337:
188:
174:
709:
524:
442:
75:
67:
611:
586:
460:
382:
310:
264:
211:
203:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
737:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
626:
553:
491:
410:
357:
207:
673:
658:
640:
549:
487:
341:
333:
305:
is an essay (=personal opinion of the author) and not a guideline (=en wikipedia policy).
302:
255:
250:
230:
53:
309:
was made to write a notability guideline for software, but it failed to reach consensus.
154:
717:
696:
582:
578:
402:
374:
353:
199:
607:
378:
260:
113:
483:
406:
655:
637:
401:
Sorry, but I strongly disagree and I think that is a flawed interpretation of
629:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
713:
692:
581:
is not actually relevant in a AfD; we're judging the article solely against
288:
731:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
373:
The four sources above all seem to meet the standard set in
548:
independently. Would strongly suggest you have a read of
109:
105:
101:
173:
482:
all) should probably be considered one source as per
229:
It might be a fine app but it isn't notable, though.
636:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
409:, even if we could get past all the other issues.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
745:). No further edits should be made to this page.
552:#4 before telling others to "do more research".
604:list of Software-related deletion discussions
477:The first "reference" in the list above says
187:
8:
602:Note: This debate has been included in the
336:is an opinion, not a guideline and citing a
601:
577:It may be worth bearing in mind that the
455:What constitutes notable software? See
7:
479:"ServeStream" / "by William Seemann"
24:
348:. I don't think I need to get my
284:Android Pit Overview and Review
279:AndroidZoom Overview and Review
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
447:15:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
722:16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
701:16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
682:15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
664:09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
646:09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
616:14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
595:05:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
565:06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
533:05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
503:05:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
469:04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
457:General Notability Guideline
422:12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
387:12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
369:04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
319:00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
274:AppBrain Overview and Review
269:16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
239:10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
220:03:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
62:00:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
762:
350:+2 goggles of x-ray seeing
734:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
289:Android.informer review
546:exactly the same text
708:- And there was an
352:out to connect the
48:The result was
710:additional review
648:
618:
536:
519:comment added by
249:According to the
753:
736:
661:
643:
635:
631:
558:
535:
513:
496:
415:
362:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
761:
760:
756:
755:
754:
752:
751:
750:
749:
743:deletion review
732:
659:
641:
624:
556:
514:
494:
413:
360:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
759:
757:
748:
747:
727:
726:
725:
724:
685:
684:
651:
650:
649:
633:
632:
621:
620:
619:
599:
598:
597:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
538:
537:
506:
505:
472:
471:
450:
449:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
392:
391:
390:
389:
342:user generated
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
294:
293:
292:
291:
286:
281:
276:
243:
242:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
758:
746:
744:
740:
735:
729:
728:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
686:
683:
679:
675:
671:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
657:
647:
644:
639:
634:
630:
628:
623:
622:
617:
613:
609:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
566:
563:
560:
559:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
501:
498:
497:
489:
485:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
432:
423:
420:
417:
416:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
363:
355:
351:
347:
346:User:Wseemann
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
327:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
257:
252:
248:
245:
244:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
733:
730:
705:
688:
669:
652:
625:
587:Stuartyeates
554:
545:
515:— Preceding
492:
478:
461:Stuartyeates
434:
411:
358:
349:
338:WP:BIGNUMBER
332:- as above,
329:
311:Stuartyeates
246:
226:
225:
212:Stuartyeates
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
76:ServeStream
68:ServeStream
307:An attempt
231:CeesBakker
204:WP:TOOSOON
54:Beeblebrox
739:talk page
608:• Gene93k
301:Note the
208:WP:REFUND
37:talk page
741:or in a
706:Addendum
627:Relisted
555:Stalwart
550:WP:PROMO
529:contribs
521:Wseemann
517:unsigned
493:Stalwart
488:WP:PROMO
439:Wseemann
412:Stalwart
359:Stalwart
334:WP:NSOFT
303:WP:NSOFT
256:WP:NSOFT
251:WP:NSOFT
120:View log
39:or in a
379:Teeks99
261:Teeks99
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
689:Delete
670:Delete
583:WP:GNG
579:WP:COI
562:(talk)
500:(talk)
419:(talk)
403:WP:GNG
375:WP:GNG
366:(talk)
356:dots.
354:WP:COI
330:Delete
227:Delete
200:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
674:Salix
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
718:talk
714:Whpq
697:talk
693:Whpq
678:talk
656:Wily
638:Wily
612:talk
591:talk
525:talk
484:WP:N
465:talk
443:talk
435:Keep
407:WP:N
383:talk
315:talk
265:talk
247:Keep
235:talk
216:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
680:):
557:111
495:111
414:111
361:111
189:TWL
118:– (
720:)
699:)
614:)
606:.
593:)
585:.
531:)
527:•
490:.
467:)
459:.
445:)
385:)
317:)
267:)
237:)
218:)
210:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
716:(
695:(
676:(
660:D
642:D
610:(
589:(
523:(
463:(
441:(
381:(
313:(
263:(
233:(
214:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.