Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perpetual Notes

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Notes

[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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several software listed in "Comparison of notetaking software" which are not notable enough. So there should be a full revision of that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:761E:DB00:B032:44C4:F5BE:3E92 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before updating the list, I have downloaded many notes software listed on the page and discovered many of them are either defunct or do not satisfy notable software list e.g. dead links, no external review other than software vendors' own websites etc.

If any software is removed, then it should not be the one which was added latest. This can put off many new editors from improving Wikipedia.

Big software vendors like Microsoft Onenote, Evernote or Google Keep have very big budgets to get their software reviewed in well known magazines etc. Many software listed here are from small developers who offer their products for free, without any commercial interest.

Software industry changes very fast. While reviewing the software in this list it became quite clear that this page has not been properly updated for a long time. However, the latest additions should not be removed by default. Even if any older software is defunct now, one can still track that something existed in the past. Since those old but defunct software are kept, the newer ones additions should be kept as well as rules should be same for every article listed under same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movilogo (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Software products gain 'Significant Coverage' through Beta tests and user downloads. So it may be argued this parameter might have not fully satisfied. However, considering 'Reliable', 'Secondary Sources', 'Independent of the subject', the reference of the Softpedia article, which is an independent, technical analysis of the product and recommendation. These need to be taken into consideration. On balance of probability I am of the opinion this article meets the 'Notability' test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwlOfTheEast (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 single review on a download site is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. With a release date of May 2020, notability is currently not established. A quick Google search showed this user review as the only significant hit. Also, Wikipedia is no PR platform to promote new products - flaws in current topics and lists do not justify the inclusion of yet more flawed content. @Movilogo:, please discuss questions about the comparison list on the list's talkpage. This AfD discussion is only meant to focus on the stand-alone article itself. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is new non-notable software as GermanJoe explained above. Also note that after this article was nominated for deletion, its creator Movilogo (talk · contribs · logs) nominated the personal wiki/outliner software application WikidPad for deletion (deletion discussion). Ironically, WikidPad at least has the distinction of having been around for 15 years, which Perpetual Notes can't even claim. Biogeographist (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only has WikidPad been around for 15 years, so has it's deletion discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I'm guessing that Movilogo is praying that this deletion discussion stays open for another 15 years... Biogeographist (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable as of now and too new. Maybe if it got some press, then it can be added later. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON at best I think. -Kj cheetham (talk)
Delete fails all four criteria of SOFTN's §2. ——Serial 10:58, 29 July 2020 (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.