Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TweetBot

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. Notability established via WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TweetBot

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

notability of app in question. No refs to support notability. Reads like a commercial. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 21:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ TweetBot is a great app...this article is terrible. Rambling that reads like an excited review from a fan rather than a neutral article about why the app is notable (along with placing the app first in Template:Twitter navbox, which I have moved back into alphabetical order). Probably not self-submitted PR as Tapbots usually takes much more time on ad copy than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Weak Keep Attempted a tweaked rewrite of the article, I think this can be rescued now with the added sources. Nate • (chatter) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added refs to 4 reviews; there are more on other reputable sites. Notable through wide press coverage. Needs rewrite, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not all sections have been referenced, although some have been it has got better. Also slightly agreeing with Mrschimpf, and if kept it would need a bit of a re-work.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have done as such and removed most of the 'excited review' writing in an attempt to make it more neutral. Nate • (chatter) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the added references the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Advertising concerns, to the extent they have not already been addressed can be handle through normal editing. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and it is notable enough to have its article. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 09:50, 22 May 2012 (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.