Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear Notes

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 delete. The article was speedied by Athaenara, which is not really what the policy is about, but nobody has supported keeping the article here, so the end result is the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Notes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacking indication of notability. Run-of-the mill, trivial coverage listing the app with other products, or coverage based on PR. No indication of depth of coverage, therefore failing WP:NCORP. Note, this has failed AfC and has been CSD as Bear (Productivity App). Author has disclosed paid editing on behalf of the company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included articles from top sources in the tech industry and included reviews both positive and negative of the app so as not to be biased.

Apple, New York Times and Techradar are credible , reliable sources that discuss the app in detail.

It failed speedy deletion because it was the very first attempt I made at writing an article. The information written here is reliable, trustworthy and notable while written in a neutral tone. Any suggestions to help improve the article are welcomed, thanks.(Damienkelly26 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment : The article reads like a fawning ad but the New York Times dedicated a whole article on it. (The stuff from Apple is to be discarded.) -The Gnome (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome, Yeah, I saw that NYT article, but then I realised that, while it starts with Bear, it continues by giving a broader overview of the note taking app market, ie. Jotter Pad, Penuzen, Grid Diary, Narrate and Moodnotes. So IMO this is more of a market overview which I'd consider run-of-the-mill reporting rather than a dedicated article._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's naked advertising. WP:NOPROMO is policy and trumps notability. Absent a total rewrite this can't be kept. Seriously, this is CSD G11 material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Jake Brockman that the NY Times article, while devoting a significant amount of space to Bear Notes, is more of a survey of the app space than anything else. It's not a bad source, but not enough by itself to meet WP:NCORP. The Forbes article is a contributor piece ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"); while Forbes is, in general, a WP:RS, contributor pieces are not. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 5 July 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.