Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsFox

:{{la|NewsFox}} ([{{fullurl:NewsFox|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsFox}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested PROD (tag removed with zero explanation). Firefox extension with no assertion nor evidence of notability; no third party sources; tagged with notability concerns since last year without a single edit, let alone any improvement Stormie (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsFox||}}

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsFox||}}

• Weak keep as a somewhat notable extension. No objection to a redirect to an appropriate target, though. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there seem to be a decent number of reviews of this online extension, some from semi-notable sources. As with Youngamerican, I'd be fine with redirecting to a more general "List of Firefox RSS Extensions" that includes this extension if such a thing exists/should come to exist. Zachlipton (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Any chance of adding links to some of these reviews from semi-notable sources to the article? I didn't have much luck googling due to the generic name. --Stormie (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Sure I'll add some. I had decent luck searching for "Newsfox Firefox" or "Newsfox extension" to eliminate most of the Fox News stuff. Zachlipton (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I found one [http://www.dcs-media.com/FirefoxExtension/newsfox.aspx entirely ineligible review] in a self-published blog and no signs of significant coverage in reliable sources: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22NewsFox+review%22+OR+%22review+of+NewsFox%22][http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22NewsFox%22+firefox]. The page is unreferenced, and the above editors offered no tangible evidence in support of their views. — Rankiri (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If we are to cover every Firefox extension a better move would be to create a general article for those notable enough. RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with RUL3R*flaming, though. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2009 (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.