Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireTune

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 keep.

(non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

FireTune

[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)

Declined PROD. My concern was that this product is not notable and has no mention in reliable sources. With regards to the sources present in the article, the Lifehacker article is promotional and mostly a press release, and Gigaom is a blog so it can't demonstrate notability here. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep This extension is discontinued but was notable at the time and in my view notability doesn't stop when a software stops existing. The LifeHacker article is sufficient to establish notability and they don't do promotional articles. I've also found a CNET review: https://download.cnet.com/FireTune-for-Firefox/3000-11745_4-10383402.html There's another one on Clubic (French): https://www.clubic.com/telecharger-fiche14750-firetune.html And if you search I'm sure there are more in other languages, German, Spanish, etc.
talk) 18:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

More sources in German: https://www.chip.de/downloads/FireTune_14745423.html, https://www.netzwelt.de/download/3798-firetune.html, https://www.pcwelt.de/news/Firetune-0-5-Firefox-Tuner-in-neuer-Version-281819.html And in Spanish: https://es.ccm.net/download/descargar-3239-firetune, https://www.malavida.com/es/soft/firetune/

I'm looking for non-English sources because Firefox is more popular in Europe than in the US. I'm sure you can find more in Russian, Italian, Polish, etc. But I think just the English sources would establish notability anyway.

talk) 10:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing is weak. It's true that if notable it stays notable, but maybe a merge would be best. The nom is slightly off 1. this is software (rather than a commercial "product") 2. Lifehacker is a review (although weak) 3. Gigaom is used over 1000x as a source in WP. Widefox; talk 14:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each piece of software is and remains a product, no matter how many times you call it something else. Thanks for pointing this out with Gigaom; perhaps we should remove it from the articles in which it is cited. wumbolo ^^^ 17:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A software product is a product yes, but not all software are products no. So not per se, no, see Software a generic term that refers to a collection of data or computer instructions where the word "product" is only used in the commercial section. It'd be wrong for some software. source code isn't necessarily a product either, but is software. Software may also be a service e.g. Software as a service. If you're serious about removing over a thousand references I suggest you take that up elsewhere and gain consensus. Widefox; talk 18:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is so bad that it cites a blog, then it's better to just remove all unreliable sources from those articles, article by article. And there is a policy called

WP:BLOGS. wumbolo ^^^ 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My point is clear for everyone else to see - yes while blogs are generally not allowed, they are still allowed, and this one used in >1K articles (whatever the individual merit of that particular site).

WP:PERMASTUB, so for that alone it should be merged or deleted. These noms seem to be applying overly simplistic understanding of the rules (and misconceptions) for mass deletion. Is that in the reader's interest? (There's certainly no consensus for it at these 20-40 AfDs.) Widefox; talk 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

OF COURSE there is no consensus in these AfDs when you and Bradv provide so stupid (read: not based on policy and often based on essays) arguments! And then you vote to topic ban me. I was almost inclined to stop AfDing because of you stalking me, but I will not stop because I don't want to leave the articles to people like you to determine notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place for discussing that allegation is

WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo not here. Widefox; talk 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you hear yourself?! You are the one wanting to discuss my "misconceptions", and constantly bringing it up (see

WP:DEADHORSE). So you can talk about it wherever you please but I can't defend myself anywhere except at ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment My 'gut' feeling would be to delete as a Firefox specific add on that lasted a couple of years. But there are arguably just sufficient sources. The last review on the article was just before it discontinued. If there is a viable merge target that would be better. Probably for me what is the most significant aspect is how it became no longer available due to a logo issue ... not obvious from this angle at Firefox#Trademark and logo (Others may have been affected as well).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right it looks borderline to me, leaning towards weak delete. The logo/branding issue was a notable topic, but this is too out of scope for

Mozilla software rebranded by Debian. A merge target isn't obvious to me right now. Widefox; talk 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC). (I rhave subsequent re-entered the discussion lower).[reply

]

I indicated my main concern was the logo/branding (and perhaps if that was more widespread). I have some some searching and decided not to pursue. While I would perhaps have gone weak delete I am minded there have been other sources found which I have little interest in checking. I am currently therefore leaving the decision to others. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge - there's enough sources above to pass GNG - good work
User:WikiLaurent. It may be notable, but a small topic, so merging to a target that isn't obvious to me is also OK. Widefox; talk 21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not every addon is notable. In this case, there are only 2 sources, the others are download sites. Source 1 from Lifehacker looks a bit promotional, so it is probably not neutral. Source 2 is a blog. It doesn't meet GNG nor
WP:NPRODUCT. » Shadowowl | talk 19:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

For information, CNET and Clubic aren't just download sites, they do proper reviews too. download.cnet.com is used as a source 380 times in Wikipedia, and clubic.com 50 times, it's also used 741 times in French Wikipedia.

talk) 06:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you justify why you're using NPRODUCT, when per the discussion above this is disputed relevance here? Can you say which company is involved? Shouldn't this be merged into that companies article per NPRODUCT if correct and not notable? Widefox; talk 00:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know what NPRODUCT is? I'm just providing third-party sources which I believe are relevant and reliable. I don't know what company created this add-on and don't know if they have a page on Wikipedia. If they do, yes maybe we can merge to that page.

talk) 09:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep~~Delete~~ On balance weighing various aspects of this article mind me it should be deleted unless something significant emerges to change my opinion. The article itself in its current form does not add much value to the encyclopedia. My non-authoritative perusals indicate Totalidea went on into the small 'apps' market and the logo issue might have been an excuse to drop the product and move on to other things which might earn more revenue. There appears to have been some interest at the time in tuning Firefox to access Tor and I have seen one suggestion Firetune may have been helpful but it was not the only tuning required and may not have been a primary purpose of Firetune. It may have been the king of Firefox optimisation for a short reign but I suspect technology moved on and it could only address one bottleneck of the user performance experience. But such claims would need verification and strong sourcing in the article. The products life was two years or less and the reviews can have a degree of 'hype' which needs to be considered. Overall I don't think I've seen this product as been proved as a significant lead or best of breed in its field for a really significant period of time WP:SUSTAIN. Thankyou. 10:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

However I am just self-wondering if some of this reasoning has just applied a form of
CSD:A7 to software? ... I may try some article improvement to see if that helps. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I can think of plenty of articles that "do not add much value to the encyclopedia", but that's not a valid criteria to keep or delete an article. If it's sourced appropriately and sources are reliable then it's supposed to be kept. If we start deleting articles because we feel they are uninteresting there will be a lot to go on Wikipedia.
talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The reviews are a mixed bunch and at the second from ClubIC .. the one originally posted here ... looks more like a paper rehash. None mention alternatives. Missing cite details are also an issue. They dont mention any alternative product.But in totality they begin to tell a lifecycle story if one digs deeply enough. I should have mentioned gut feel but my guts are all over the NI and various AfDs at the moment. That said I am working the article ... I would hope constructively given my delete vote and keeps are welcome to tell me to stop and revert if they like. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked the article and I've reached the point where I can say Weak keep. The article demonstrates better with the lifecycle of four years and its Firetune's place in history is in better. It is not apparent if the Fasterfox product was better .. but that went some time ago. People wishing to improve the article please feel free to improve ... I know my reasoning at AfD discussions can be controversial and I'm oftern better working improvements to the article and seeing where it leads. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the article, it's very good now and quite comprehensive actually. I feel this kind of article is valuable to keep a record of a now discontinued software program.
talk) 12:43, 26 September 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.