Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drync
While I don't given much credence to the Wikipedia:Notability_(software) essay, determining which software is notable is a tricky and subjective matter (as nearly all non-person,non-book notability discussion are). To suggest that "computer" books or magazines establish notability doesn't make sense in this context (as it would in the case of history or rare birds), so we're left to look at whether multiple credible sources are writing editorial and/or informative content on the subject. It's easy to cast aside software reviews, but they're presently the means by which nearly all modern software is discussed in an objective manner (unless the Wikipedia list of software is to stop in 1999). Older, less-noteworthy software that made it in with the "Wiki land rush" must not crowd out software that is more recent and noteworthy. Queries for drync show extensive writing on it by a number of sources with a style and substance that satisfy erifiability, eliable Sources, and ikipedia is not. Any investigation should certainly take its course and any misconduct be dealt with, but that would not seem to bear on a deletion request at this time.--Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39
— [[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]), 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:R||WP:W (Wikipedia:Verifiability)