Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet (3rd 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 keep. Sandstein 11:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains unreliable sources, and the subject gains only passing mentions in reliable sources and literature. Previously PRODded but declined. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are several sources:
The Chinese sources have interview content, but also provide enough in-depth coverage aside from the interviewee's responses to have significant independent coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any non-interview coverage of the product at Sohu, and the tech.sina article (for which I'm not sure if it's reliable) does have content outside the interview, but based on press releases. The Softpedia review does not convince me. wumbolo ^^^ 14:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Newslinger. SJK (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of those sources are non-independent, but there's at least one here and one in the article meeting GNG. Widefox; talk 14:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which one in the article? wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree. That's OK. Let others give their opinions at these AfDs please, per WP:BLUDGEON. Widefox; talk 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. You are not only bludgeoning, but also failing to WP:LISTEN. If you don't want to answer my question, you don't have to say anything. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This mass AfDs disruption is offtopic here - should be discussed at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo Widefox; talk 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing your AfD disruption; it's YOU constantly bringing up my "disruption". You are continuously avoiding my question, which is 100% relevant here. wumbolo ^^^ 12:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REHASH and WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck. Asking one simple question is tendentious editing?! wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on everyone else's !vote is bludgeoning and it isn't convincing anyone (here and at 30 AfDs), yes. Widefox; talk 21:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment despite the AfD title, there's two previous AfDs closed Keep. Widefox; talk 17:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PC World article satisfies the Notability requirement. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Powerhouse: notice that it is a blog. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (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.