Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiText

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MobiText

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". Prod was removed by the article creator (whose account name is also associated with the software firm), though after adding links to a couple of reviews. However these reviews (one describing MobiText as "yet another similar utility") fall short of the reliable sources needed to establish notability, so I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else is going to write a entry for it, and it's not cool to kill an article days later and I spend my own personal time writing it. Then how so did CCleaner make it but MobiText doesn't? Gavin Stubbs (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Nobody else is going to write an entry for it" -- i.e. no one but you thinks it's notable -- is a powerful argument for deletion. As to CCleaner, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, it is just yet another text editor. It doesn't need its own article. Possibly an entry could be added to List of text editors, although a worrying number of those do have their own articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not demonstrated, no reliable sources in the wild. Problems with verifiability of the already included material make this article hopeless. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, from reliable sources. Not done in this case. --Drm310 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do I need? If you do a Google search you can find many sources for MobiText, even on the product page we have 7 or so listings to different reviews. http://www.dyniform.net/mobitext Gavin Stubbs (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding download sites (not independent) and blogs (self-published), your list is empty. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 22 July 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.