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. WilyD 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectBot[edit]

ConnectBot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable app. This looks like a great app, it appears to work well for the many people who use it and they like it. It does, however, not appear to have received the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG. It may be there are sources out there in non-English languages or maybe under a different name, but I'm not seeing them. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the world will recognize the genius of the app shortly; if that's the case I'd encourage the creator to ask for a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were previously comments concerning the notability of this page available on its talk page, which should have been read before nominating this for deletion. The summary is: it easily falls under the WP:NSOFT guidelines of notability for software. It is an open source project with more than one million users. It is also frequently written about in the various android software news sites. A google search for the term "connectbot" produces pages of news articles about this software, reviews of the software, tutorials on using the software, etc. It is clearly notable in the open-source android community as well as the larger android software community. In addition, the user who nominated this software for deletion clearly did not follow the guidlines listed on the WP:NSOFT page and has been constantly harassing open-source android software without regard to these guidelines.Teeks99 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a reliable source for the million users claim? I see there are a million downloads / installs on the Android market, but this is a security-sensitive app, so presumably users need install a new version every time it's updated and there have been dozens and dozens of updates (see http://code.google.com/p/connectbot/downloads/list ). Users can have several devices each. So a million divided by dozens then divided by several seems like it's less than a million. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The google page is the *most* reliable source available for stats on android usage. While the number 1,000,000-5,000,000 definitely does not indicate that there are close to 5,000,000 human users it does indicate a large number. If you look closely at the project page you linked above, you'll note there have only been about half a dozen releases in the last two years...if you couple this with the fact that the vast majority of android users have only started using android in the last two years it is not unreasonable to expect that the average user hasn't had more than one or two updates. Clearly the number 1,000,000 is a good ballpark figure. Even if it were only 10,000, that would still be clearly notable for a software appliction of this nature. Teeks99 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the google store has more than 25,000 reviews written by individual users, so that would set a floor for the minimum number of users. In reality the number of actual users would be several times that number as most users don't write reviews. Teeks99 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the WP:NSOFT is an essay (=personal opinion of the author) and not a guideline (=en wikipedia policy). [attempt] was made to write a notability guideline for software, but it failed to reach consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be, but it does indicate that according to some people view, this is clearly notable software and it mostly firms up the requirements beyond what is specified in WP:GNG. Additionally the sources at the bottom of the page in question (and more on the talk page under the notability discussion) all seem to meet the standard set in WP:GNG. Significant: "address the subject in detail", they all have lots of details about how the software works; "more than a trivial mention" those are pages dedicated to this subject. Reliable: These are all popular sources for news/software/info about the category (android apps). Sources: They are all secondary sources (as is google). Independent: they work with many apps and aren't tied to any particular app, nor the author. Teeks99 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there's enough coverage for it to be notable: TechRepublic[1], Ghacks[2], Houston Chronicle[3], BSD Magazine[4] (link is to magazine contents). Briefer mentions elsewhere[5][6][7]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (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.