Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DownThemAll! (2nd nomination)

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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DownThemAll! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Just like the last time it was deleted, it is still not notable, has no mentions in reliable sources, and has only routine coverage and passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are all primary. Googling for sources only reveals a few routine reviews. Given that browser extensions are run of the mill, the sourcing isn't good enough to pass WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:PRODUCT. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Given that browser extensions are WP:MILL" - there's actually no basis in policy, guideline, essay or discussion for that is there? In fact, the consensus of browser extension articles that exist is the opposite, isn't it? Widefox; talk 19:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Note that WP:GNG doesn't exclude product reviews, and whether coverage is "routine" is only a consideration for WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH, which don't apply to this article. — Newslinger talk 13:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are several sources:
    1. DownThemAll 3.0.8 review by Macworld
    2. DownThemAll review by PC World
    3. DownThemAll review by Download.com (CNET)
    4. DownThemAll! review by Softpedia (editorial team)

  — Newslinger talk 13:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ROUTINE, which talks about news articles covering an event, has nothing to do with WP:EVENTCRIT (and it is based on WP:NOTNEWS), which talks about Wikipedia articles about an event, and it does apply to this article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ROUTINE is a section of WP:EVENT, which also doesn't apply to this article. The entire paragraph concerns events, not products. — Newslinger talk 13:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyhow, if routine coverage is only taken into account with regards to WP:CORPDEPTH, then we don't have to use it at all here. wumbolo ^^^ 13:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MacWorld and PCWorld are affiliated so they are not independent. The CNET article is in an Internet download directory website, so it isn't independent since it hosts the software. The Softpedia review fails WP:NPRODUCT. wumbolo ^^^ 13:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, a source is not "independent" if it is owned by a company that owns multiple properties, or links to downloads of that product. Independence in this case means not directly tied to the subject of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my logic. What I meant by MacWorld and PCWorld not being independent isn't that they weren't independent of the software, but that they can't count as two sources since MacWorld is affiliated to PCWorld. The other thing I definitely did not say. wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit dismissive to label them all lacking "independent", when the term is used in two different ways. They have different authors and content, making the IDG link seem stretching. Beware of WP:BLUDGEON, let others find sources and improve the place. Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Weak Keep) There's enough review sources for WP:GNG. (https://www.downthemall.org/development/bloggers/spread-dta/press-says/ lists enough sources for clear GNG) Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Widefox; talk 19:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the sources identified by Newslinger are sufficient. I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when sources count as "independent" is excessively strict. SJK (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The kind of article that can be helpful sometime to somebody. -- Nsda (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is an arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer I agree with Newslinger - the subject specific notability guidelines quoted here that do not apply and their shortcuts are: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (NPRODUCT) Wikipedia:Notability (events) (ROUTINE), plus NSOFTWARE is an essay (there is no software guideline), and there's no basis in policy, guideline, essay for browser extensions being inherently non-notable or requiring a higher bar per MILL, in fact we have many such articles that have been kept at AfD so the consensus is that other ones are, so they can be notable (WP:OTHERSTUFF applies). Widefox; talk 22:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a great article, but I think the sources are sufficient. --LichWizard talk 23:31, 1 October 2018 (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.