Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understand (software) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand (software)

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

Previous version of the article was deleted due to lack of notability. This one has the same problem. There are plenty of references but none of them are reliable sources with significant coverage. In the revision I tagged, the first reference is the tool's developer. References 2, 3, 7, and 8 are unpublished student papers or white papers. References 4, 5, 9, and 10 give only passing mention to the subject in a list of tools or purchases. Reference 6 does not mention the subject at all. Psychonaut (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are about the software - they are all general discussions of the issue the software addresses. In looking for reviews (which could support notability), I found it on CNET, but as #35 in programming software. That basically shows that it's not notable. LaMona (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose and draft and userfy later if needed as all in all there may not be much for as much of a better article as there could be. Notifying 1st AfD commenters Ysangkok and Dialectric. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been updated. Please review before deleting article. --Mennbaji (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My review of this revision: I don't like references 3, 5, and 6 (project reports/presentations, seemingly not formally published and sometimes saying almost nothing about Understand). Reference 4 is a bit skimpy (only a couple paragraphs on the subject) but apparently reliable. References 2, and especially 1, are much more thorough in their coverage. Whether Softpedia is a reliable source for editorial reviews is debated (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52#Softpedia Linux software reviews) but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. (Never heard of Flurry and couldn't find any discussions at WP:RSN.) So in light of the new sources I will !vote a weak keep against my own nomination. Pinging User:LaMona and User:SwisterTwister in case they want to assess the new evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference has been added (currently listed as reference #2). This is a published article from Circuit Cellar and it goes more in depth into what Understand does and why it is significant.--Mennbaji (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has rescinded, !voting "weak keep" in a later comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 19 December 2015 (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.