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 no consensus. A poor discussion that may need to be repeated. I have to discount the first two "delete"s for being pure votes (despite Nosebagbear's relisting comment), and the second keep as far outside policy; what matters are the sources and they are not adequately discussed here. Sandstein 08:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion remains the same, same reasoning. Delete. 404House (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
Multiple reliable third party sources
Sources point out popularity within it's class and utility for it's class.
That's enough for an article.
A quick news/books check on SearchResultsMegacorp reveals more less than stellar but more than adequate instructional and advice pieces from mainstream publications since the last deletion.
Rant I expected to find an article for this software earlier in the week. I figured Wikipedia would have reliable info and points to the actual source given how popular it is. We've got plenty of articles for absolutely forgetabble iPod games from ten years ago that have less sourcing and no claim to notability. I mean, ffs, there's an article on Kingoroot which is outright malicious. Lucky Patcher is a grey use hack tool that requires a rooted Android. It can be used for Android optimization or for avoiding payments and cheating. As a grey use tool, it's banned from being mentioned on places like XDA, and probably isn't going to find a lot of mainstream attention, but it's found some and that's enough to keep. Personally I find it indispensable on a rooted Android. It's very notable within that community and judging by the questions I get asked regularly on Quora every idiot discovers it because they think it'll help them cheat the game of the week. It has more users than most of the garbage software reviewed from blogs and adbait sites (*cough* being on C-Net is not a notability claim) that Wikipedia is full of.
Regarding Multiple reliable third party sources and A quick news/books check on SearchResultsMegacorp reveals more less than stellar but more than adequate instructional and advice piecesSchmuckyTheCat could you link to those sources that you consider adequate under WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
When seeking software that is not supported in mainstream 'stores' it is difficult to locate the appropriate, safe original creator. I rely on wikipedia at times to provide information on various subjects such as this and believe that this article on Lucky Patcher is quite helpful, accurate and should not be deleted.
See WP:WHYN for why we require indepth coverage to have an article, and Lucky Patcher does not appear to have that coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm going to relist it, but I would ask MER-C & 404House to re-provide their justifications. It isn't fair on either other participating editors nor the eventual closer to have to locate your arguments, and it hinders further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failing notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCT. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise. I smell a sock with the SPA keep vote, the previous AfD was closed as a delete for failing notability guidelines. That really hasn't changed with this article. I would advocate closing this as well. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment
Digital Journal is used greater than 500 times (the limit of my query) in Wikipedia references. Digital Journal has multiple articles on Lucky Patcher.
techleash.com is reputable enough for WP to report on itself, Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-07/In the news and has multiple articles on Lucky Patcher.
techstory.in is used greater than 500 times as a reference on WP, and has coverage on Lucky Patcher. This is one of a few: [1]
so anyway, what's that argument about not covered in sources again? Especially because these sources indicate ongoing coverage over time this makes any statements like "per my last !vote" irrelevant because it means those editors aren't considering new coverage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither techleash.com nor techstory.in appear to have articles about them. I looked and they appear bloggy. Your zeal and suspected use of WP:SOCK appears to indicate a conflict of interest. Have you disclosed this? Ifnord (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sock. lolz. Puhleaz, son, conflict of interest, oh yeah, totally, I must be the Lucky Patcher dev.
wtf do I care if the sources have articles? They are used as references. If they are used as references on 500 other articles to establish notability, then you can't come and say they don't establish notability here. Who's on first? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid on AfD include WP:WHATABOUTX. Looking simply at this article alone, the references are poor and the subject has not garnered enough sustained coverage to meet the notability criteria for WP:PRODUCT. Ifnord (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Ifnord said. Also, sources can be used as references yet not establish notability. Sources need to be independent and be for a broad audience to help establish notability; so even if the sources are reliable they may not establish notability. (also searching insource:"techstory.in" finds only 36 uses in articles, and there is no indication that source is being used to justify notability in those other articles.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (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.