Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five-O (mobile application)

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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five-O (mobile application)

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

non-notable software product. Hangeron9999 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — Hangeron9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: An app just launched today? It might be notable in the future, but hardly so now. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page, multiple articles devoted to this product, passes WP:NSOFTWARE IMO Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating user has three edits,[1] looks suspicious, for a new user to get into deletions etc., some who can ought to have a good look. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the nominator, the reality is the app was launched today. Instantly notable? I seriously doubt it. If you insist, you can count me as the nominator. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1)The nominator's actions raise suspicions. (2) The notability criteria is satisfied IMO, multiple mentions in independent third party reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can somehow demonstrate malicious intent, then you must assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Just because it's a new account doesn't mean the AfD is illegitimate. As I said, if you insist on this then you can replace him with me. Very few products are notable on their first day of release. Wikipedia is not a repository of news. That the app was released doesn't make it notable, just because some newspapers commented on it. If the app is so notable, then why is it not available on the iOS app store (yet so claimed by this article)? There is a Five-0 app...it's a game [2]. While it IS available on Google Play [3], it's been downloaded less than 500 times, and reviewed by less than 100 people. If that's a grand release, it flew as well as a lead duck. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) An editor completely mint fresh, jumping into the quagmire of AfD is bound to raise suspicion, also a SPA. (2) regarding its claimed support by Apple and your counterclaim of lack of support, the article quotes reliable sources as evidence, what you are doing is OR. (3) Well I've a source that says it is pending approval on iStore. And I will modify the article accordingly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject complies to WP:GNG Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep attempting to hammer this AfD because of the person that brought it. As I've said twice before, if you feel it necessary you can mentally supplant the nominator with me. The 'reliable' source claiming iOS distribution isn't reliable if it can't be verified. That's not WP:OR. That's called a primary source. So you have a 'source' that says it's pending approval? Do you have a close affiliation with this (so far unpopular) app? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not related with this application, I live in India, the application is done by Georgian kids, now my question, are you related with this SPA? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this a reliable source? Bus stop (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable and enough 3rd party sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS.—Aquegg (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now, on the grounds that it's a bad-faith nomination by a user with his own agenda to push. Note how a rural Missouri based IP 64.85.217.167 (talk · contribs) came out of left field to defend the single-purpose user's nomination. If they're not the same guy, I would be surprised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Baseball Bugs, and others above. Speedy Keep, a cursory search shows dozen of reliable sources, and the nominator is an SPA, this nomination being his ~~second~~ first edit to the pedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's press coverage in the Washington Post and AlJazeera, even though this is only a week-old product. No reviews yet, though; this is more like a product announcement than a product. For now, keep; if the product goes nowhere, the article can be deleted later. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 25 August 2014 (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.