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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostery[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I do not see that this meets the criteria for inclusion. Looking at the references/external links, I can see a couple of reviews and a few minor mentions (the Fox News mentions says "Use a program like Ghostery to block tracking sites, or at least make you aware of who's following you"; the Wall Street Journal says "The technology company will collect data from a variety of sources, including a panel of about 300,000 people who have volunteered to use its Ghostery software. That software lets consumers see which companies track them as they surf the Web"; the Time article mentions it in a list of extensions, the main mention of Ghostery is in the comments) - there is a lack of significant coverage which is independent and at reliable sites. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a prime example of software that is obviously notable. ("The Mozilla Firefox Ghostery extension has been downloaded almost 2,400,000 times." That means 2,400,000 users have found it to be "notable" enough to add to their Firefox configuration. 2,400,000 independent notices in favor of the software.) Yet by wikipedia standards it is in danger of deletion for so-called lack of notability. The criteria is flawed. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure given is for total downloads of all versions - I tried to find out how many downloads of each version there are, and especially of the current and previous versions, but couldn't find this information. There have been more than 20 versions of this software (the listing of versions at addons.mozilla.org only goes back to version 1.3.4). That means the average download per version is 120,000. Of course, that's an average - we have no way of knowing for sure about specific downloads for specific versions. I had a look at random (in no way scientific!) extensions, and found that while some of them were only about 300,000 downloads, many of the ones I looked at were showing 2,000,000+ downloads (and with few versions). I still do not see the 'significant coverage at multiple independent reliable sources' which the notability criteria says is required. Number of downloads in and of itself is not sufficient - you may not like the criteria, but we are not discussing whether the criteria should be changed (the place for that would be at the criteria's talk page), we are discussing whether (under the current criteria for notability) this article should be kept or deleted. Incidentally, I have taken the liberty of adding 'keep' to your comment, as that is implicit, but it makes it easier for people looking here to see that! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to what Phantomsteve writes, there are numerous quantitatively subjective criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF for examples. I don't see why an academic topic that has been noted by one other academic is WP notable, or why an academic that has at least 100 citations (Google Scholar h-index of 10, which may well be self-citations) is WP notable, but this software which has millions of downloads is not. A search in Google books finds several mentions with more or less brief blurb: one in PC World (print) Volume 27, Issues 1-6, one in Windows 7 All-in-One For Dummies and one in Time (magazine) [1] that add to notability. Because it's a cross-browser extension it would be impractical to merge this to all four browser articles' involved. It also meets the letter of WP:GNG, with a long review in Macworld [2] and shorter ones in [3] PC World (also syndicated in Washington Post [4]) and [5] PC Advisor. A longer review appeared in PC Advisor for an older version [6]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage about this software is sufficient to establish notability as pointed out by FuFoFuEd. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2011 (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.