Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe OnLocation

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 merge to Adobe Creative Suite. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe OnLocation

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

Delete for lack of software notability under the general notability guideline, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, lack of coverage in third-party sources, previously proded (September 2011‎), and merger suggested by DGG instead, no one thought it worth the trouble. Two essays may give food for thought: Wikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Software notability. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge If nobody else took the trouble, you could have done it yourself instead of coming here--its really pretty obvious. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see if any one was interested, and they weren't. No comments in a month on a talk page that was otherwise active. I could have done a hack job on a merge, but I don't know the software. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that even a redirect might be more than it deserved, less than a footnote in history. It is not my area of expertise, and I'll bow to people who know more. --Bejnar (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: trivially easy to demonstrate NOTEability, like this, this, this and this. All of these are well known widely read international magazines or similar. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adobe Creative Suite. Even with sourcing, I would say there's not enough to warrant an article. A mention in the Creative Suite which it was packaged with, however, wouldn't be a bad idea. Red Phoenix ^{build the future…}^{remember the past...} 23:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE refers to a particular POV being pushed, and demonstrating UNDUE generally requires edits as a fix. I don't believe UNDUE is an argument for AfD, nor do I see any evidence that it applies to this case anyway. Can you be more specific as to why you believe UNDUE would override a demonstration of NOTE in this case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (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.