Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pupil Meter

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. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pupil Meter

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

Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, shops and pr. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. It's an app that is very successful in its niche, and its use is widespread. I supplied a lot of references from a variety of different sources to establish notability, which is what one has to be done with an app. If there's an Apps category on Wikipedia, then this is surely the type of info needs to fill out the category. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N is not satisfied by the refs included with the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every app ever created. Edison (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable app. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another non-notable app being promoted on Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No evidence of being a notable app, no claim made of notability. LK (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources - 20/20 might be reliable, since it's published by Jobson Medical Information LLC. But the rest are simply reproducing info from the app's producers, giving directory-listing-style info, or from the websites of retailers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included links to the retailers to show that this App is actually in use by quite a few businesses. Surely that is what would make the app notable? The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are promotional. The article is promotion. All new saleable products are promoted, and Wikipedia does not welcome promotion, new saleable products have a high bar to beat. To beat "delete too promotional" you need direct and signifcant commentary from independent sources. Comment does not include description. Reviews are not independant reviews if they describe and include a purchase link. Evidence of use is not secondary source information and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia-notability (WP:N). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All reviews I found were personal ones - and almost universally bad as it turns out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2013 (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.