Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codeproof: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 11 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 '''delete'''. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===[[:Codeproof]]=== |
===[[:Codeproof]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}} |
|||
:{{la|Codeproof}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codeproof|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 10#{{anchorencode:Codeproof}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Codeproof Stats]</span>) |
:{{la|Codeproof}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codeproof|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 10#{{anchorencode:Codeproof}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Codeproof Stats]</span>) |
||
:({{Find sources AFD|Codeproof}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|Codeproof}}) |
||
Promotional article about a non-notable company (almost no 3rd party coverage) written mainly by a COI editor. It's struggled with promotional content since its inception and is currently effectively a promotion. Cleanup tags unresolved since Jan. 2016. [[User:Falcon Kirtaran|FalconK]] ([[User talk:Falcon Kirtaran|talk]]) 02:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
Promotional article about a non-notable company (almost no 3rd party coverage) written mainly by a COI editor. It's struggled with promotional content since its inception and is currently effectively a promotion. Cleanup tags unresolved since Jan. 2016. Nominated here because my [[WP:PROD]] was contested by the COI editor. [[User:Falcon Kirtaran|FalconK]] ([[User talk:Falcon Kirtaran|talk]]) 02:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - I couldn't find sources to meet [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. The Redmond Reporter interview is the longest source out there, but it's free a weekly community newsletter with a circ of about 25,000, which gives it little weight, per [[WP:AUD]]. Interviews are also poor for notability in general. [http://www.geekwire.com/2012/startup-spotlight-codeproof-helps-id-jailbroken-phones-malicious-apps/ This GeekWire] puff is slightly broader, but it's super softball: less an interview and more a platform for the founder's musings on the industry. It's also a column which invites any startup in the region to "Apply for Startup Spotlight" which undermines any claim of neutrality. I looked, but found nothing better. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 20:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington|list of Washington-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*I am working on a improved article here in my [[User:Shilpacs/sandbox|sandbox]]. I have added genuine third-party references and more. Please provide me feedback. i look forward to working with community. [[User:Shilpacs|Shilpacs]] ([[User talk:Shilpacs|talk]]) 03:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' as the sources all listed, including in the Draft linked above, are all still published-republished company advertising and it's clear since they all have the same focused consistency, therefore only one person authored that and it's the company, this is also quite clear speedy material, so that says a lot as it is. [[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]] 04:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*@[[User:SwisterTwister]]: The sources mentioned in the article are not advertisement. They are from a neutral third-party genuine sources. Are you saying we can't have this article anymore? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shilpacs|Shilpacs]] ([[User talk:Shilpacs#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shilpacs|contribs]]) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*'''Delete''': An article on a small firm (the Redmond Reporter reference indicated founder plus one sales employee in 2014) edited by at least one [[:WP:COI]] account. (The article lacks the necessary [[:WP:DISCLOSE]] by each such account.) The sources in the current article are a combination of primary plus local. Those in the Draft are better (though its promotional text is more appropriate for the company website where they can sell their wares) but are still routine appointment announcement and product announcements/reviews. Clearly enough to verify that this is a firm going about its business in its chosen field, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that it is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by [[:WP:CORPDEPTH]] or [[:WP:GNG]]. [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 12:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' as per nom. No indications to establish notability. [[User:HighKing|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:darkgreen;"><b>-- HighKing</b></span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:darkblue;">++ </span>]]</sup> 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:AllyD|AllyD]]: Codeproof software is completely "online" and company has built a great contents around mobile device management and mobile security area since 2011. You can see the blogs at http://blog.codeproof.com and http://www.codeproof.com/blog . i honestly think that Codeproof deserves a recognization for their contributions to internet. This Wiki article page exists since about 4 years now. Do you really want to delete it now? I personally have a great respect for Wikipedia and it's community. I am hoping to improve the article and make it even better. [[User:Shilpacs|Shilpacs]] ([[User talk:Shilpacs|talk]]) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::If it fails [[WP:GNG]] (and those blogs don't help to establish notability - see [[WP:RS]]) then it should be deleted. Try to find some independent secondary sources. [[User:HighKing|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:darkgreen;"><b>-- HighKing</b></span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:darkblue;">++ </span>]]</sup> 13:14, 19 November 2016 (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 14:04, 10 March 2023
- 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Codeproof (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)
Promotional article about a non-notable company (almost no 3rd party coverage) written mainly by a COI editor. It's struggled with promotional content since its inception and is currently effectively a promotion. Cleanup tags unresolved since Jan. 2016. Nominated here because my WP:PROD was contested by the COI editor. FalconK (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I couldn't find sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Redmond Reporter interview is the longest source out there, but it's free a weekly community newsletter with a circ of about 25,000, which gives it little weight, per WP:AUD. Interviews are also poor for notability in general. This GeekWire puff is slightly broader, but it's super softball: less an interview and more a platform for the founder's musings on the industry. It's also a column which invites any startup in the region to "Apply for Startup Spotlight" which undermines any claim of neutrality. I looked, but found nothing better. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am working on a improved article here in my sandbox. I have added genuine third-party references and more. Please provide me feedback. i look forward to working with community. Shilpacs (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the sources all listed, including in the Draft linked above, are all still published-republished company advertising and it's clear since they all have the same focused consistency, therefore only one person authored that and it's the company, this is also quite clear speedy material, so that says a lot as it is. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @User:SwisterTwister: The sources mentioned in the article are not advertisement. They are from a neutral third-party genuine sources. Are you saying we can't have this article anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpacs (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: An article on a small firm (the Redmond Reporter reference indicated founder plus one sales employee in 2014) edited by at least one WP:COI account. (The article lacks the necessary WP:DISCLOSE by each such account.) The sources in the current article are a combination of primary plus local. Those in the Draft are better (though its promotional text is more appropriate for the company website where they can sell their wares) but are still routine appointment announcement and product announcements/reviews. Clearly enough to verify that this is a firm going about its business in its chosen field, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that it is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. No indications to establish notability. -- HighKing++ 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- AllyD: Codeproof software is completely "online" and company has built a great contents around mobile device management and mobile security area since 2011. You can see the blogs at http://blog.codeproof.com and http://www.codeproof.com/blog . i honestly think that Codeproof deserves a recognization for their contributions to internet. This Wiki article page exists since about 4 years now. Do you really want to delete it now? I personally have a great respect for Wikipedia and it's community. I am hoping to improve the article and make it even better. Shilpacs (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- If it fails WP:GNG (and those blogs don't help to establish notability - see WP:RS) then it should be deleted. Try to find some independent secondary sources. -- HighKing++ 13:14, 19 November 2016 (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.