Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typeeto

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. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typeeto

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

NN software. No reviews from major software pubs. Sourced exclusively to unreliable blogs without hallmarks of editorial quality. No worthwhile redirects. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran through the requisite links to look for mentions, but I needn't have done that. The article is rather well cited, considering the field. It's often hard to judge the notability of blogs, as the nominator points out. But since LifeHacker and Product Hunt are deemed notable and such for Wikipedia, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for WP:Verifiability and general independent editorial content. There's then a debate over what might make this notable, but I think it just hits that bar for that. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia deletion policy requires pursuing diligent alternatives to deletion before an AfD request can be made. This is POLICY and is not optional. This cart is therefore before the horse. Checkingfax (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What alternative are you suggesting that was neglected? And what is your actual argument for keeping it? There isn't any good place to redirect it. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion:

Main page: [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags however are not intended as permanent solution; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems. Tags are listed here. Some of the more common ones include:

{{cleanup}} for poor writing
{{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention
{{notenglish}} for articles written in a foreign language
{{npov}} for bias
{{stub}} for a short article
{{refimprove}} for lack of verifiability
{{merge}} for a small article that could be merged into a larger one

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. czar 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to mention that LifeHacker and Product Hunt are notable and reliable sources. As well as iFun.de and AppleSfera (I added this source today to the article) are well known sources in German and Spanish correspondingly. If this is still not enough, please let me know how can I improve the article more. Thanks DashaG11 (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To review those two sources being referenced: This is the LifeHacker—it's fine but it's a paragraph. But the Product Hunt page doesn't even have any official text... so there's nothing to use as a source apart from user-submitted (unreliable) information. (A source is reliable not because it has a WP page but because it has editorial control.) The foreign language posts, if even reliable, are repackaged press releases with no commentary or "review". I'd also like to remind anyone participating in AfD that if they have a potential affiliation or conflict of interest with the subject they're writing about, they should be disclosing as much on the article's talk page. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNET good? It's not longform, but with enough mining from that and the Lifehacker source the article could get developed enough for a weak keep. Another from Technology Personalized, which seems to have an established staff. 23W 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@23W, CNET would be good, but it's a duplicate of the Lifehacker source (and says so). And I don't think Technology Personalized is reliable, despite the peacocking on their staff page. czar 14:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely and I was about to close it as such but I'll simply comment for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 14 October 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.