Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldsboro Web Development: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:21, 4 May 2015

Goldsboro Web Development

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG - the only references are business registration information entries, and the business' Softpedia site. The business does not appear to be associated with any events that are encyclopedia-worthy. Helenabella (Talk) 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A local firm going about its business, but no evidence that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this company is notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Company has published software to both Softpedia and WordPress.org more than was included in the wiki page, also references from government websites. Goldsboro Web Development cites Softpedia which in turn cites Wordpress.org which is verifiable sources that this company has created unique software which qualifies the company for inclusion under the condition of its software being encyclopedic material^[1]. It is more appropriate to flag this as a stub instead of deletion. Out of curisoty to why this was flagged for deletion and not a stub I checked out the innitiator's user profile and found he/she is a web/graphic designer him/herself^[2] and focuses contributions on deletion of web designers. This officially classifies as WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT and should lead to a speedy keep. Company escapes WP:INHERITORG from resources: WOT^[3], Wordpress.org/plugins^[4], Angie's List^[5], Better Business Bureau^[6], and Softpedia^[7]. Company meets Wikipedia:Notability from having 200,000+ websites using their software^[8]. It is also noteworthy that other delete votes are of web designers and developers. This is indeed a WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk)
KEEP - I referenced Super Captcha in a citation as proof that it is our software. I have yet to create a page for the notoriety of Super Captcha yet. It is a rule on Wikipedia to have Good Faith -- not bad faith which is the action of this nomination. Here is an example of the notoriety of Super Captcha, called most secure captcha by a University in Australia^[9] I believe this is the independent notoriety you speak of that your bad faith got the best of you on. FYI, the experiment shows that attacking our CAPTCHA only had a 27% success rate (which means it cannot solve the full captcha), the next best was a 31% success rate. Good day. There are a very, many, many more.. ^[10] ^[11] Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] "Dictionary".

[2] "Wikipedia Profile History".

[3] ""Web Of Trust (WOT)"".

[4] "WordPress Plugin Support".

[5] "Angie's List Listing".

[6] "Better Business Bureau Listing".

[7] "Softpedia".

[8] "Google Search "Secured by Super Captcha"".

[9] "Austrialian University Research Paper".

[10] "BuddyBoss recommendation".

[11] "Yet another university research paper - note the resources".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Delete''' - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this company is notable. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 *'''KEEP''' - Company has published software to both Softpedia and WordPress.org more than was included in the wiki page, also references from government websites.  [[Goldsboro Web Development]] cites Softpedia which in turn cites Wordpress.org which is verifiable sources that this company has created unique software which qualifies the company for inclusion under the condition of its software being encyclopedic material<ref>{{cite web|title=Dictionary|url=http://www.audioenglish.org/dictionary/encyclopedia.htm}}</ref>. It is more appropriate to flag this as a stub instead of deletion.  Out of curisoty to why this was flagged for deletion and not a stub I checked out the innitiator's user profile and found he/she is a web/graphic designer him/herself<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia Profile History|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Helenabella&diff=563517873&oldid=507697163}}</ref> and focuses contributions on deletion of web designers.  This officially classifies as [[WP:CANVAS]] and [[WP:CONFLICT]] and should lead to a speedy keep. Company escapes [[WP:INHERITORG]] from resources:  [[Web of Trust|WOT]]<ref>{{cite web|title="Web Of Trust (WOT)"|url=https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/goldsborowebdevelopment.com?utm_source=addon&utm_content=rw-viewsc}}</ref>, [[WordPress|Wordpress.org/plugins]]<ref>{{cite web|title=WordPress Plugin Support|url=https://wordpress.org/tags/super-capcha}}</ref>, [[Angie's List]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Angie's List Listing|url=http://www.angieslist.com/companylist/us/nc/goldsboro/goldsboro-web-development-reviews-7621818.htm}}</ref>, [[Better Business Bureau]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Better Business Bureau Listing|url=http://www.bbb.org/raleigh-durham/business-reviews/web-designers/goldsboro-web-development-in-goldsboro-nc-90208926}}</ref>, and Softpedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Softpedia|url=http://webscripts.softpedia.com/script/Modules/WordPress-Plugins/Super-CAPTCHA-69115.html}}</ref>.  Company meets [[Wikipedia:Notability]] from having 200,000+ websites using their software<ref>{{cite web|title=Google Search "Secured by Super Captcha"|url=https://www.google.com/search?q=Secured+by+Super+Captcha&oq=Secured+by+Super+Captcha&aqs=chrome..69i57.6560j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8}}</ref>. It is also noteworthy that other ''delete'' votes are of web designers and developers.  This is indeed a [[WP:CANVAS]] and [[WP:CONFLICT]].  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91|2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91]] ([[User talk:2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91|talk]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-*'''KEEP''' - I referenced Super Captcha in a citation as proof that it is our software.  I have yet to create a page for the notoriety of Super Captcha yet.  It is a rule on Wikipedia to have Good Faith -- not bad faith which is the action of this nomination.  Here is an example of the notoriety of Super Captcha, called most secure captcha by a University in Australia<ref>{{cite title=research|url=http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=eispapers}}</ref>  I believe this is the independent notoriety you speak of that your bad faith got the best of you on. FYI, the experiment shows that attacking our CAPTCHA only had a 27% success rate (which means it cannot solve the full captcha), the next best was a 31% success rate. Good day.  There are a very, many, many more.. <ref>{{cite web|title=BuddyBoss recommendation|url=http://www.buddyboss.com/how-to-combat-spam-signups-in-buddypress/}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Yet another university research paper - note the resources|url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2665896}}</ref>  Bad faith = fail. [[User:Leewells2000|Leewells2000]] ([[User talk:Leewells2000|talk]]) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
+*'''KEEP''' - I referenced Super Captcha in a citation as proof that it is our software.  I have yet to create a page for the notoriety of Super Captcha yet.  It is a rule on Wikipedia to have Good Faith -- not bad faith which is the action of this nomination.  Here is an example of the notoriety of Super Captcha, called most secure captcha by a University in Australia<ref>{{cite web|title=Austrialian University Research Paper|url=http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=eispapers}}</ref>  I believe this is the independent notoriety you speak of that your bad faith got the best of you on. FYI, the experiment shows that attacking our CAPTCHA only had a 27% success rate (which means it cannot solve the full captcha), the next best was a 31% success rate. Good day.  There are a very, many, many more.. <ref>{{cite web|title=BuddyBoss recommendation|url=http://www.buddyboss.com/how-to-combat-spam-signups-in-buddypress/}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Yet another university research paper - note the resources|url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2665896}}</ref>  Bad faith = fail. [[User:Leewells2000|Leewells2000]] ([[User talk:Leewells2000|talk]]) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 == References ==