Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contra (app)

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. T. Canens (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contra (app)

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

The article appears well source, but that kind of falls apart under scrutiny. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources are mostly inadmissible; the coverage from reputable independent sources does not mention Contra. There might be enough here to justify an article on Khazan, but not the app itself. ubiquity (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some sources do actually mention Contra specifically, i.e. the interview with Kapur by Kaleb Butt and the prMac article. (I am the author of the article for the record). I just found more relevant sources and added them at 20:31. (They are: Smudis TV iOS App Review, Product Hunt discussion about Contra, article on The Cheat Sheet, article on Southwest Shadow, and Engineering.SG Show and Tell about Contra). I hope this addresses your concerns and you will reconsider, thanks. Indybones33 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia policy on Verifiability so you will know what I mean by inadmissible sources. I do not believe that you have yet produced reliable and independent sources that indicate that subject is notable. ubiquity (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't the sheer number of sources that reference the app make it relevant, as enough people have taken notice of the app and actually reviewed it? Also, The Cheat Sheet's founder is Damien Hoffman, who was a writer for the Huffington Post, which is a reputable source. The author of the article from The Cheat Sheet is a reputable tech journalist who has written for Cheat Sheet and NationSwell. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, section Biased or opinionated sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective...While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context," which should apply to any app reviews. Reviews, which are opinions, shouldn't necessarily have to be fact-checked articles because they are opinions of the thing being reviewed, and the "facts" about what is being reviewed are clearly evident from using the app. Also, Smudis TV is a popular app reviewer on YouTube. In addition, Engineers.SG is a reputable Singaporean tech meetup, which features developers in Singapore. Indybones33 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been shown, most sources in the article are not independent, unreliable or not about the subject. Anyway, it seems to be just another app, with routine coverage in sales outlets, It could be mentioned sometime if an article on the creator of the app is written, when he becomes notable. In the meanwhile... Kraxler (talk) 01:38, 18 August 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.