Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetion

Fetion

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

This software seems to be non-notable. Links in the article are nowhere close to establishing notability, and all that I could find on the web is some news wire with trivial coverage – mostly announcements of plans by China Mobile with no in-depth discussion of the software itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Some in-depth coverage of its market share:[1][2][3]--180.155.72.174 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of its market share belongs to China Mobile article – this one is about piece of software, and unless some in-depth coverage of software (as opposed to market wire) is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm confused with your words. The decline of Fetion's market share is closely related to the poor performance of the software, as discussed in these sources. For exapmle:"凭借其PC与手机互通，短信与消息的无缝互转功能，并依托中移动庞大的网内基数，飞信发展迅速，至2011年中期飞信活跃用户数接近8270万。在国内IM软件市场，飞信曾跻身前三名。""而在增强用户粘性、引异网手机用户的竞争中，飞信作为中移动的战略产品也发挥了重要作用，但拥有了庞大的用户群，却没拥有良好的口碑，这为日后飞信的衰败埋下了伏笔。""即便在飞信发展迅速时，在很多业内专家看来，飞信作为一款互联网产品并不成功，移动互联网专家王煜全曾表示，飞信就是一个免费发短信的工具，除此之外，还有什么作用。""飞信的衰败与产品本身的问题有关，快速成长之后，飞信又瞄准QQ，希望能在商业收入方面开疆扩土，于是纷繁芜杂的功能被加入，越来越多按钮仅为收费而存在。""飞信基础功能则停滞不前甚至后退，PC端越来越臃肿，手机端飞信的不稳定和消息的延迟有目共睹。"(taken from the first source) I wonder whether you've read the provided sources in detail, or maybe I have to know what's the expected "discussion of the software itself".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market share does not speak of particular features, user interface, development history of this software, or at least anything that would allow to distinguish it from other instant messengers. See this for example of coverage that would count for WP:GNG purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarkoff:If all that required is "particular features, user interface, development history of this software", I can provide more sources.[4][5][6] In my point of view, the reception of the software, which is usually shown by its market analyse, is more important than its function, just as a book review weighs much more than a plot summary.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]