Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsLeecher

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. Evidence-based argument to keep has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsLeecher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. The article has been tagged for notability since January 2010. A WP:BEFORE search did not find sources any apart from downloads and reviews that are not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG. – Meena • 12:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Will we also be deleting all/most/many of the other clients that are in this Wikipedia list of news reading clients or perhaps from this comparison list of clients? I mean,why this particular client (yet again) but not the others? It seems to me, that pretty much all or most of the clients in those Wikipedia articles, should be in these deletion discussions. There simply are no good arguments as to why NewsLeecher (one of the most successful, and oldest surviving commercial binary readers) should be singled out in this way, for deletion where the others remain. I have no dog in this fight (other than being an occasional user of this software - amongst others) but it does seem, at least to me, that there is an unreasonable focus on this client, that does not appear to apply equally, or similarly focused, on the other clients. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That is clearly invalid. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Tech Radar source is the only source I find, other than download sites. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article meets WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (by way of inclusion criteria #3, the reviews). There are in-depth web reviews ( ITProPortal, TheLoadGuru, AlynSmith.com, UsenetReviews.org) which show notability through WP:NSOFT. I know what some may say in rebuttal, "I've never heard of 'itproportal.com' it doesn't sound like a reliable source. They're regulated through the Independent Press Standards Organisation and are part of Future plc, so it's got the editorial oversight we look for in reliable sources. The other three I can see an argument for them being questionable, but fortunately we have more than just web reviews to go by. Here is a newspaper review of the software featured in the Chicago Tribune in 2005. It's also discussed in print in the 2007 book Windows Vista Timesaving Techniques For Dummies on pages 217–220 (maybe it goes past page 220 but it won't let me view those pages, but that much content is much more than a trivial mention). So we have the ITProPortal review, the Chicago Tribune, and the Dummies book, that's WP:THREE reliable sources right there, all of them are reliable sources independent of the subject, meaning the article meets WP:GNG. Add in the TechRadar reference already present in the article and I'd say notability is established through these sources. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per the excellent sources found by User:Aoidh, and strong WP:TROUT the nominator User:GeoffreyT2000 for all of the following:
  1. Having found "reviews" (plural), which automatically demonstrate WP:GNG unless there are specific reasons to exclude them, yet making no attempt to provide any such reasons to justify the assertion that they "are not sufficient for notability";
  2. Telling another discussion participant their argument is "clearly invalid" because of a page that is a mere essay, not a policy or guideline; and
  3. Rejoining the debate to write the above, but completely ignoring the wealth of sources that had already been provided by then.

Modernponderer (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2022 (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.