Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIM Ad Hack (2nd nomination)

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. MuZemike 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIM Ad Hack

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

I am sure that this is a useful tool for those among us who wish to get rid of pesky ads from such software, but we are not a database of software that internet users may find useful, we are an encyclopaedia. There are only two sources for this article, neither of which would be regarded as reliable sources, and a search reveals plenty of download sites, forums, etc, but no reliable sources which discuss this product in depth, thereby giving it encyclopaedic notability Russavia ^Dialogue 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) - I added a new reference of notability to the article. Apparently this piece of software was profiled on G4. G4 counts as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject, I'm just not so sure if it's "significant" coverage. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An archive of the segment on G4TV in which AIM Ad Hack was discussed can be viewed here. A reliable source has been added to the article, but widespread coverage is not evident. On another note, I really should assume good faith, but I must question the motive of Russavia, the nominator, who I feel has been somewhat uncivil to me and avoided any discussion of the article with me or other contributors beforehand. After pointing out that it is considered impersonal and discourteous to template experienced users, he responded with this edit and dropped another template on my talk page. Regardless, his reasoning for this AfD is still valid, and I agree that the sources of this article do not represent significant coverage. I have been and will continue to search for more reliable sources in the meantime.Ali ^(t)_(c) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the keeps above. ~~The first link isn't significant coverage and the second link is not a reliable source.~~ The G4 link isn't significant coverage because it is a tutorial and Crenk isn't significant coverage because it is a tutorial. Techspot and WebTechGeek aren't signficiant coverage because they are download sites. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second link was not included in the article as a source, I just linked it for reference. The second link is the same source as the first link (G4 TechTV), just in a different format. Ali ^(t)_(c) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will reword it. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For reasons given above and there are no content articles that link to it. Any notable content could easily be placed in the AIM article. Is there other software that performs this function? If so then this product could be listed with others in a more general article. Basically the existence of this product is wholly dependent on the existence of AIM, so anything said about it should probably be in the AIM article.--RDBury (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other AIM add-ons which perform this function, notably a now-defunct add-on known as DeadAIM. I understand that AIM Ad Hack may not be notable enough to have an article of its own, but it would not be a bad idea to merge any notable information from add-ons such as DeadAIM or AIM Ad Hack into the main AOL Instant Messenger article. Another option would be to create a single article for AIM add-ons, where we can merge all notable information from the various AIM add-on articles to. I am not vehemently opposed to the deletion of AIM Ad Hack, in fact, I nominated it myself for deletion the first time around. Ali ^(t)_(c) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons noted by Ali (despite his keep vote). Doesn't have demonstrable notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (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.