Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch Typist Typing Tutor

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MasqueDesRonces (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Typist Typing Tutor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This seems to be a genuinely long-running piece of software, but sadly there is no extant coverage in reliable sources (apart from the cited ad for the Amiga version) according to GNews, GBooks and a cursory general Google search, and the publisher (from which all but one of the sources originate) is similarly obscure. I don't see a single criterion in WP:NSOFT it could possibly fulfill unless some wealth of documentary evidence from its early existence has somehow escaped me. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~(See my comment below) - Full disclosure, after reading the article and seeing how long ago this software was made I went into this thinking I could swoop in with sources and WP:HEY this thing with sources. But I've checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com (broadly and even narrowing it to specifically British papers), archive.org, and The Wikipedia Library resource. Through all of that I have come up with exactly 0 sources, not even a trivial mention to be found. Given its age it's possible there are archived old references tucked away in some resource that I just don't have access to or haven't considered, but given the complete and absolutely lack of references elsewhere I think it's unlikely. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, as sources just aren't there and all of the references currently in the article are non-independent or otherwise unreliable (specifically the expired eBay listing, which at best would just verify the software exists, not that it's notable in any way). If sources can be found please ping me and I will be happy to reassess my position on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and set precedent. This is quite likely the most depressing AfD I have ever come across on Wikipedia. This time it's not a lack of effort – the participants so far have done more than due diligence – but something far worse: entire reliable sources (not mere articles!) just vanishing into thin air with the passing of time. The software's website helpfully (proactively?) compiles a list of review quotes, but doesn't have the actual citations to back them up, perhaps because even the software author doesn't have that information. The modern magic of exact phrase search allows rescuing even the most obscure media... except what if the good people contributing to these archives didn't have these specific issues? (Note: I suspect these links are not copyright-compliant, so it would probably not be appropriate to put them in the article, but we don't have to because they are printed sources. For discussion here, I can hardly imagine links to obsolete media that may not exist anywhere soon not being fair use.) Pinging User:Aoidh (per request) and User:MasqueDesRonces... Modernponderer (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to acknowledge that I have seen this and that I am not ignoring it, but I have been digging for sources for a few hours now for a different article that's at AfD (trying to find a video) and my brain is absolutely fried at the moment. I absolutely will take a look at this and comment on it soon. - Aoidh (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the work you've done here, @Modernponderer! I obviously hadn't come across these reviews, but they are exactly what I was half-hoping someone would come up with to save the article (the COI of the software's main author writing the initial article notwithstanding). Sadly, they don't appear to establish the software's main claim to fame, its longevity, as such, but they allow it to meet at least one of WP:NSOFT's criteria, and so I'm happy to rescind the nomination to work on improving the article. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have struck my delete rationale above and am commenting here as to why. Thank you Modernponderer for finding those sources. I also checked archive.org before commenting originally and didn't come across these reviews, so I'm just going to chalk that up to you being better at searching through that resource than I am (and as an aside, your comment about sources vanishing is exactly why archive.org is one of the most important resources on the internet by far). I would have liked to have seen more than just three reviews and maybe something outside of just reviews, but with these sources the article's subject does meet the third bullet point of WP:NSOFT's inclusion criteria and also WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:12, 24 September 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.