Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TowIt

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TowIt

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

This app got a little news coverage for its idea ([1] and [2] for example) but ultimately I think it fails WP:ORG. agtx 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many RS. Forget ORG, this qualifies on GNG. Google News is full of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources not only analyzing (praising or dissing) this app, but even shows city governments, civil community groups and more talking about this app. Note to the nom: Just click on the link that comes with this Afd for searching links and if you are satisfied, you might consider withdrawing this nom. Thanks. Lourdes 03:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (can't get video to play). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are effectively the same article from the same week or two in spring 2015. No coverage at all since then. I don't think an app gets an article because news sources (even reliable ones) ran stories about its existence on a slow news week. agtx 05:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in part because notability is not tempoarary, and in part per the actual dates of the sources I provided above. The topic has received coverage in January, May and June of 2015.

[8] – June 4 2015
[9] – May 28, 2015
[10] – January 21, 2015
[11] – January 19, 2015
[12] – no date

– Also, here's another source: [13], published on April 27, 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs work but I'm confident the sources NA1K has found will help it to be fixed by normal editing, so I don't think deletion is the answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should add that there does appear to be a COI problem on this page. I understand that doesn't affect notability, but I did want to mention it. agtx 23:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- COI declaration added to the talk page. It should be noted that agtx's apparent negative bias towards this subject could also represent a COI. Perhaps agtx could be personally impacted through the existence of the application, or have a financial interest in a related industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - G0rf, that is an argument (in my opinion, silly) that you should not place in this forum. Take it to coin if you wish. Thanks. Lourdes 02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, there is no basis for this bad faith accusation. I can categorically state that I have absolutely no interest in anything even related to this subject. agtx 02:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies, I don't mean to be argumentative. Regardless, I'm now done adding to this article. Feel free to do what you wish with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, thank you for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2016 (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.