SponsorBlock: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , or merge if a suitable candidate can be found, emphasize on can .  Most of the sources provided are primary and don't prove notability as compared to other adblockers which have articles and have survived AFD.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is marginal on GNG (though that is only a notability guideline , and other factors can point to notability as well).  However the claim of "zero reliable or secondary sources" is just false.  This was featured on Mozilla's extension spotlight ( [2] ) as well as on ghacks ( [3] ).  There is not really a good merge target either (or I probably would've just mentioned this there instead of making a separate article).  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mozilla is not a news source, such as ZDNet .  Ghacks alone can't support this article.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ElijahPepe : Your claim was that there are "Zero reliable or secondary references".  That is pretty clearly false; there's a pretty big difference between two such sources and zero.  As for Mozilla... while their site is branded as a blog, I have no reason to assume they would not be a reliable source for this subject.  It's a blog with editorial oversight (by a pretty major organization) that reviews extensions.  Citing them for a review of an extension is a very reasonable thing to do.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 04:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree with this Ashleighhhhh ( talk ) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Although I disagree with the nom's claim that there are zero reliable or secondary sources, it is hard to find sources to establish this source's notability.  Only having two or more reliable sources for verifiable content would make this a permastub.  0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I'm pretty sure that if you don't include MOU do to not focusing of SponsorBlock and include Mozilla and Ghacks.com (Most reliable name ever⸮) it would only have maybe two sources contribution to GNG.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two sources contributing to GNG is often enough.  And of course GNG is just a guideline and not the only thing that can indicate notability either.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SponsorBlock is notable enough for its own article.  (yes, I am really going to do this)  Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia for everything, The sum of all human knowledge , as you will.  SponsorBlock has notable events in its history (including being the most popular browser extension on Firefox).  I think that some links would also be broken, because this browser extension is quite popular.  All I'm asking for is for SponsorBlock to no longer be nominated for deletion.  ObsessiveScribe ( talk ) 17:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, but it's not everything .  SWinxy ( talk ) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep This certain verifies in reliable sources .   It has been around for at least three years, and now appears on a number of lists of desirable software add-ons.   I note that it is now on majorgeeks.com, and is generally rated as 5/5 by users in user reviews.   None of the computer oriented websites reviewing the software give much detail, but it seems if this is appropriately encyclopedic.  -- Bejnar ( talk ) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting although this could conceivably be Deleted.  But there are several comments here that don't officially state Keep but are definitely arguments to keep this article.  What matters of this project is not how many users are fan of this extension but secondary, independent reliable sources that give this subject SIGCOV.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Very little depth to the coverage it's received, except for the Mozilla blog post (which should be reliable).  The rest I've found are listicles.  It needs to be the main topic of at least a few independent secondary sources ( WP:SIGCOV ).  SWinxy ( talk ) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ghacks review is pretty in-depth as well (given how much there is to write about this).  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 21:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The mozilla blogpost doesn't seem to be extremely independent of the subject, assuming that Mozilla generally tends to write about their recommended extensions, given the SponsorBlock – Skip Sponsorships on YouTube is part of Firefox’s Recommended Extensions program at the end of the article 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 05:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't pay to be in the recommended extensions program or anything.  It's just "extensions that the Mozilla team thinks are good".  Of course those are the ones they write about.  See here .  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mozilla is the organization behind Firefox.  I don't think we can suggest that Mozilla would be able to provide independent reporting of web extensions for their own platform.  0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as mentioned above, no in depth coverage.  Cinadon 36 23:45, 24 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete