Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infragistics: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Hyperbolick (talk | contribs) →Infragistics: intent |
Nocturnal306 (talk | contribs) Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
||
:{{la|Infragistics}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infragistics|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December |
:{{la|Infragistics}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infragistics|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 27#{{anchorencode:Infragistics}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infragistics Stats]</span>) |
||
:({{Find sources AFD|Infragistics}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|Infragistics}}) |
||
References do not meet [[WP:ORGCRIT]]. My [[WP:BEFORE]] search didn't find anything better. [[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
References do not meet [[WP:ORGCRIT]]. My [[WP:BEFORE]] search didn't find anything better. [[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''Delete'''. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Some feel like churnalism. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Some feel like churnalism. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
** '''Further comment''' on [[WP:ORGCRIT]] discussion above. Seems to be a welcome refinement to [[WP:GNG]]. Don't want spam pushed in by passing a false veneer of meeting GNG. ORGCRIT requires deeper examination. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
** '''Further comment''' on [[WP:ORGCRIT]] discussion above. Seems to be a welcome refinement to [[WP:GNG]]. Don't want spam pushed in by passing a false veneer of meeting GNG. ORGCRIT requires deeper examination. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (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, -<span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px;">[[User:NahalAhmed|<b style="color: White;">Nahal</b>]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:NahalAhmed|(T)]]</sup> 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Infragistics]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> |
Revision as of 18:35, 27 December 2019
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Infragistics (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)
References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the supplied sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which sources in particular would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I said nothing about ORGCRIT, so mu. GNG, on the other hand, states if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", and it has a lot of sources that give sufficient weight to the existence of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I understand you wrote GNG, but ORGCRIT says in particular "the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Companies have been given higher standards, including with the strengthening of WP:NCORP a few years back. So while the company may be mentioned in many articles, these are brief mentions, general announcements, and references closely associated with the company (such as press releases) which would not satisfy the guideline in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's wonderful. It's not an issue though because if a subject meets the general notability guideline, every other guideline is moot. You understand that, right? And while they're brief mentions, there are a sufficient number of them that we have an over significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, Civil much? If you don't like my opinion I understand but stick to content. I'd expect better from an experienced editor but maybe not. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- What are you on about? I made no commentary on you, but I did ask you a question. The issue at hand is whether one notability criteria is enough or if your preferred criteria must be met. Someone below claims it does not meet GNG, that's better than claiming that ORGCRIT must be met and GNG is not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Intent of my comment is that if ORGCRIT is not met then GNG is not met, former being the measure of the latter. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Some feel like churnalism. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment on WP:ORGCRIT discussion above. Seems to be a welcome refinement to WP:GNG. Don't want spam pushed in by passing a false veneer of meeting GNG. ORGCRIT requires deeper examination. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)