Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trackr

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. I'm sufficiently satisfied that there's compelling arguments to close this as a keep. After two relistings with minimal further input I fail to see such a consensus forming as to make it actionable to delete this article. KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trackr

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

Non-notable app. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable app. See significant coverage below. Please consider section D of WP:BEFORE and also WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Press releases do not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

None of the sources I provided above are press releases. Seven of them are bylined news articles and reviews written by staff writers that are published by reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are press releases. The way the system works is that corporate PR operators write pieces for publication in trade journals and lazy journalists publish them as they are. A symbiotic relationship. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Nah, you're incorrect in this case. Here's one example: in this TechCrunch article, the author, Kyle Russell, states (in part):

I personally found the TrackR most useful right inside my apartment, which is currently in a state of organized chaos. Everything looks like a mess, but it’s all in the right place. The problem with this mode of organization is that eventually you forget which bin holds that backup pair of headphones."

It's absurd to describe this source as though if the article was written by the company's marketing department and then the author simply added their name atop the article. This is obviously not the case; it's an independent article published by a reliable, independent source. It's also rather insulting to the authors of said articles to mischaracterize their work in this manner. It seems that you've already made up your mind, though, regardless of the actual reality of the matter. It comes across that you may not have even bothered to actually read the articles I posted herein. Oh well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the sources being brought forward meeting our notability guidelines. The app is notable. DeVerm (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per North America's evidence, as well as these reviews: Reuters, Gizmag, Macrumors, Appadvice. Aust331 (talk) 09:40, 25 June 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.