Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifefolder (company): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:59, 18 December 2020

Lifefolder (company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ref bombed article on a non notable organization of which two-third of the sources aren’t even connected to the organization. A before search reveals no reliable source discussing them with in-depth significant coverage as required by WP:ORGCRIT if you analyze the sources used in the article you’d realize they are all a mirage/facade. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article has been nominated for deletion. I think that the sources cited need to be carefully evaluated. The Emily bot was even featured on a BBC video. And take into account this company only existed for less than a year. All the sources mention either the company or the product, which in this case is Emily. The Silicon article, even if is not titled 'Lifefolder', is about the Emily chatbot. QuinteroP (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you affirm that the article is on a notable organization? Okay. Celestina007 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lifeholder doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG just yet. I'd recommend moving it to a draft to supplement it with more relevant information before submitting it again. HarrietsCharriot (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with HarrietsCharriot. QuinteroP (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification wouldn’t be a plausible route to follow seeing as the article in question is showing 0 prospect of notability in the near future so what’s plausible to reasoning would be to delete the article until such a time when they the organization is notable. Furthermore @HarrietsCharriot, of what business doth GNG have to do with WP:ORGCRIT ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -A book reference has been added for evaluation. New media references have been added as well. You can carefully evaluate all of them. There are many companies which got Wikipedia articles without getting mentioned in books or getting their work featured on BBC. QuinteroP (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -In addition to, you can see that Lifefolder was featured on the 'The 2018 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab', which is an overview of cutting edge research areas within digital ethics as defined by the Digital Ethics Lab of the University of Oxford, one of the most important universities of the world. Is that a facade? Is that a mirage? QuinteroP (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuinteroP, feel free to read WP:ORGCRIT, WP:ORGDEPTH, & WP:RS then comeback and tell me how one book reference satisfies any of the aforementioned. @HarrietsCharriot, if an article isn’t notable it ought not to be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :::Draftification wouldn’t be a plausible route to follow seeing as the article in question is showing 0 prospect of notability in the near future so what’s plausible to reasoning would be to delete the article until such a time when they the organization is notable. Furthermore @{{u|HarrietsCharriot}}, of what business doth GNG have to do with [[WP:ORGCRIT]] ? '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 ::::'''Comment''' -A book reference has been added for evaluation. New media references have been added as well. You can carefully evaluate all of them. There are many companies which got Wikipedia articles without getting mentioned in books or getting their work featured on BBC. [[User:QuinteroP|QuinteroP]] ([[User talk:QuinteroP|talk]]) 06:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 :::::'''Comment''' -In addition to, you can see that Lifefolder was featured on the 'The 2018 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab', which is an overview of cutting edge research areas within digital ethics as defined by the Digital Ethics Lab of the University of Oxford, one of the most important universities of the world. Is that a facade? Is that a mirage? [[User:QuinteroP|QuinteroP]] ([[User talk:QuinteroP|talk]]) 16:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::{{u|QuinteroP}}, feel free to read [[WP:ORGCRIT]], [[WP:ORGDEPTH]], & [[WP:RS]] then comeback and tell me how one book reference satisfies any of the aforementioned. @{{u|HarrietsCharriot}}, if an article isn’t notable it ought not to be on mainspace. '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)