Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapheal

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snapheal

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

Non-notable WP:PRODUCT. Per WP:NOTCATALOG, "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.". Product has reviews in the ususal product review websites, Macworld and CNET and so on, but that's it. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Created by a WP:SPA, just lke the previous, deleted (PROD) article. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every app does not get an article. It appears the company might be called "Macphun" but that probably does not meet notability levels now either. Wait until there is enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. An app needs to demonstrate notability independently of the parent company or the OS associated with it. Also, every app will receive the initial review but whether it receives coverage after that helps to indicate notability. In this case, I don't see anything which differentiates it from any other photo editing app - no widespread use or popularity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2016 (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.