Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookit (company): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''Move to draftspace'''. The article has been/will be moved to [[Draft:Bookit (company)]] <small>([[Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">[[User:Kharkiv07|<span style="color:black">Kharkiv07</span>]] ([[User talk:Kharkiv07|<span style="color: black">T</span>]])</span> 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Bookit (company)]]=== |
===[[Bookit (company)]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}} |
|||
:{{la|Bookit (company)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookit (company)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November |
:{{la|Bookit (company)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookit (company)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 25#{{anchorencode:Bookit (company)}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bookit_(company) Stats]</span>) |
||
:({{Find sources AFD|Bookit (company)}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|Bookit (company)}}) |
||
Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS]]), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect [[WP:COI]] editing. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS]]), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect [[WP:COI]] editing. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Paid Editor]] -- [[User:009o9]]<sup>[[User talk:009o9|Talk]]</sup> |
*'''Keep''' The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Paid Editor]] -- [[User:009o9]]<sup>[[User talk:009o9|Talk]]</sup> |
||
**I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
**I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. [[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> |
|||
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Natg 19|Natg 19]] ([[User talk:Natg 19|talk]]) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> |
|||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Return to draftspace''' as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like {{U|Timtrent}} as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">SwisterTwister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Neutral''' I tend not to !vote on drafts I have accepted. The article was always borderline for acceptance. Sometimes main namespace works for a borderline article, sometimes not. All it has to be is ''capable of being referenced'' to remain here. The argument that it "simply needs more references" (presumably for it to remain in main namespace) has to fail on that basis. But, if it is returned to Draft: that has to be acceptable, too. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Return to draft space''' Premature acceptance. The refs need to be pruned to those with substnatial cotnent, and then we cna properly judge the notability . '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 09:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:17, 9 March 2022
- 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 Move to draftspace. The article has been/will be moved to Draft:Bookit (company) (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Bookit (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect WP:COI editing. SJK (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk
- I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. SJK (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Return to draftspace as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like Timtrent as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral I tend not to !vote on drafts I have accepted. The article was always borderline for acceptance. Sometimes main namespace works for a borderline article, sometimes not. All it has to be is capable of being referenced to remain here. The argument that it "simply needs more references" (presumably for it to remain in main namespace) has to fail on that basis. But, if it is returned to Draft: that has to be acceptable, too. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Return to draft space Premature acceptance. The refs need to be pruned to those with substnatial cotnent, and then we cna properly judge the notability . DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 1 December 2015 (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.