Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Dream App

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. (aeropagitica) 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dream App

My Dream App (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion nomination Contest without claim to encyclopedic notability. Obviously a contest like this has to generate publicity in order just to operate, so there was computer press coverage of the contest launch[1]. See also related afd for MacHeist Bwithh 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment moved from article talk page I am moving the following new user comment from the article talk page and registering the opinion as "keep": Bwithh 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :I see no reason for full deletion of this article (other than spite). Instead, it should be reshaped into historical reference for those people who search for My Dream App (like I just did). Unless an article is offensive or only serving a self-promotion purpose, I really see no reason to delete it.

There is no reference for rating anything on it's "encyclopedic notability". The idea of such a term is near-rediculous. If an article provides informative reference, then it should be in an encyclopedia. End of discussion. Kevin B. 03:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment by Kevin.B moved from talk page by Bwithh 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin.B, please see WP:AGF Bwithh 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.No independent sources to show the concept has achieved notability. Edison 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lots of blog entries, but lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in line with wikipedia policy to have an article for a organization if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent. I believe some examples of these in this case would be:
  • this macnn article which contains quotes from the originator of the contest but doesn't editorialize
  • this PC World article which goes more in-depth than the trivial aspects of the inital contest
  • other articles which have highlighted the main points of the contest/organization:
    • http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=15628&Page=1&pagePos=1
    • http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/10/26/5768
    • and also an interview with someone behind the website on macworld podcast, in which the main subject of the article was macheist, his latest endeavour. --brandon.macuser 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but this isn't an organization, but a contest, every contest gets written about somewhere which makes the contest i.e. the article not notable Fabhcún 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 13:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Fabhcún 20:46, 25 December 2006 (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.