Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReVanced
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ReVanced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [1]. The article should be redirected to YouTube Vanced, as it is only barely notable as Vanced's successor. Yeeno (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete (Probably) - As an independent app I agree that it has essentially no real "coverage" (many apps don't, and many apps also don't get wikipedia pages). I'm unclear on if the "ReVanced" app is developed by any of the same members, as if it was it might actually make more sense for the "YouTube Vanced" article to be renamed ReVanced as it would essentially be a name and logistical change of a continuous project. However if none of the developers or team have any stake in this new app, then I would consider it a functionally separate entity in terms of dictating article notability and thus agree to delete this page.A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - As Mino already said, for programs in general there are few "news" articles, unless there is some controversy surrounding that topic. For that reason I believe that the standard of what counts as a source for significant coverage should not be as high set for software as it might be for more traditional entities. After all, Wikipedia isn't meant to just be a mirror or collection of "news" articles.
- I think notability is proven by the roughly 3 million users this project currently has and by the astonishing amount of copy-cat sites that attempt to impersonate ReVanced for monetary gain or malicious interest. I see value in having Wikipedia as a trusted source to affirm what the actual website is, as it is more accessible and readable than GitHub.
- As for the heavy reliance on primary sources: This is essentially unavoidable as any publication could also only ever rely on ReVanced as the primary source for information like the size of the userbase for example. Taku1101 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Taku1101: There is an essay detailing how the notability guideline can be applied to software at Wikipedia:Notability (software); the criteria it uses still depend on the existence of reliable third-party sources, because WP:Notability applies to all articles, and it says:
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.
Unfortunately, there really isn't a way around this, regardless of how you think things should be. Notability also isn't determined by a WP:BIGNUMBER, nor is it WP:INHERITED from Vanced, so we need reliable third-party sources to determine notability. While I understand the concern about fakes, Wikipedia isn't the place to solve that issue, as, again, we are dependent on what reliable independent sources say; per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources are only used for self-descriptive information such as an app's website or version number, and cannot be used to support notability. Yeeno (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)- I fully understand and accept the arguments that you have presented above but further reading on WP:RS and specifically WP:QUESTIONABLE leaves me confused on the matter of what is actually to be considered a reliable source. More specifically, you mentioned the article by TF to be the only reliable coverage you could find. But what makes that coverage by TF a reliable source compared to the coverage by gizchina or tarnkappe.info? Taku1101 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Taku1101: What makes a source reliable is mostly detailed on WP:SOURCE, and editors regularly discuss the reliability of sources based on these criteria; the results of such discussions can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case, TorrentFreak was noted for it often being cited in mainstream media, i.e., other reliable sources. On the other hand, most blogs are not cited in other reliable sources for various reasons, so it would be harder to treat them as reliable sources of information. Yeeno (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well on that matter, I'd probably start a discussion on a site like tarnkappe.info as it seems to me on first and second glance to fall into the reliable category. I'm somewhat less sure about gizchina. I don't know as to how this would be handled then, considering that WP:RSPMISSING denotes that the absence of the source in question on the list does not make implications in regards to it's reliability. I cannot find further guidance on how this would be treated in a discussion about AfD on the basis of a lack of WP:RS, given that it is the central point in favor of deletion. Taku1101 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Taku1101: What makes a source reliable is mostly detailed on WP:SOURCE, and editors regularly discuss the reliability of sources based on these criteria; the results of such discussions can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case, TorrentFreak was noted for it often being cited in mainstream media, i.e., other reliable sources. On the other hand, most blogs are not cited in other reliable sources for various reasons, so it would be harder to treat them as reliable sources of information. Yeeno (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I fully understand and accept the arguments that you have presented above but further reading on WP:RS and specifically WP:QUESTIONABLE leaves me confused on the matter of what is actually to be considered a reliable source. More specifically, you mentioned the article by TF to be the only reliable coverage you could find. But what makes that coverage by TF a reliable source compared to the coverage by gizchina or tarnkappe.info? Taku1101 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Taku1101: There is an essay detailing how the notability guideline can be applied to software at Wikipedia:Notability (software); the criteria it uses still depend on the existence of reliable third-party sources, because WP:Notability applies to all articles, and it says:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete I see a single RS with coverage of this subject, TorrentFreak, [2][3], and even those two articles together don't offer much SIGCOV. I slightly disagree with the nom's proposed redirect, as it's a separate piece of software, and separate project, but I cannot think of a better WP:ATD and there's brief coverage in the target article. —siroχo 05:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I don't feel like TorrentFreak is reliable, but if it is, still not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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.