Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldsboro Web Development

Goldsboro Web Development

Goldsboro Web Development (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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

• Comment: The company has provided scholarly and scientific research to prove noteriety and has provided more than one secondary source as evidence. According to Wikipedia Policy this company should Keep Leewells2000 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this company is notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The 2 seconds to click the "Scholar" link as provided by this nomination template proves you wrong. How can you say that there are no searches indicating anything notable when the Wikipedia template hand-delivered it for you? Leewells2000 (talk) 06:56, 5 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. 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 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, Wordpress.org/plugins, Angie's List, Better Business Bureau, and Softpedia. Company meets Wikipedia:Notability from having 200,000+ websites using their software. 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)

• Please assume good faith and do not make unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations against other participants in this discussion. AllyD (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you AllyD. In relation to this deletion discussion, I am becoming somewhat uncomfortable with comments from the author on my user talk page, but am unsure what to do about them. I hope that they will bring their comments to this discussion so they can be properly considered.  Helenabella (Talk)  06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• My comments to you on your user page address your opinion of Wikipedia policy in that you believe that 6+ secondary sources are required to prove both notoriety and reliability. The comments were also very civil and polite. I'm not sure why you would begin to claim that you would be uncomfortable unless you know you are opposing Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia specifically states "more than one" secondary source. I have provided 8 (see the page again). There is no logical reason why a user would harbor an opinion in opposition to Wikipedia when the policies are so clear.Leewells2000 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Special pleading fallacy. See your own comments having assuming bad faith even in the comment you posted on my user page. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In clarification, I nominated the article for deletion. However, I am neither a graphic designer or web designer (economist, actually), and the majority of my contributions are on vandalism patrol, not on design-related articles. As such, I do not believe any commercial conflict of interest exists. I imagine the above commentator has confused me with another editor.  Helenabella (Talk)  06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've never mentioned or fingered you personally as being a web designer, though there are 3 commentators here that are. As so their previous revisions would suggest. You do however have quite a few deletion contribs to web designers and developer companies, all of which that I can see where kept Leewells2000 (talk) 06:51, 5 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 the most secure text-based CAPTCHA by research from the University of Wollongong It takes 30 seconds to search this on Google. Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Notability of a firm is not demonstrated by business index listings, nor does notability inherit from use of the firm's product(s). Standard searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not locating detailed discussion of Goldsboro Web Development but I'd be happy to revise my opinion above if some can be found. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is not inherited from USE of our firm's product(s), it is inherited from the RESEARCH of our firm's product(s). There is a very stark difference. Use of product is the popularity fallacy, accredited research is much less fallible. Again it is you who has bad faith here. You're using the ambiguity fallicy and trying to misrepresent the Wikipedia policy. The policy doesn't state that company's cannot be listed by merit of their products, it simply states that use of the product doesn't grant you a ticket. If I show statistics that our product is used on 4 million websites, it wouldn't help. However accredited and independent research to the merits of the PRODUCT is completely diffrent. Else how do indie game companies like Keen Software House make it to Wikipedia, exactly? This meets the criteria for WP:RS under "Scholarship", "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." See https://books.google.com/books?id=Zku5BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=On+the+Security+of+Text-based+3D+CAPTCHAs&source=bl&ots=neDqfohkoU&sig=Ya5Tey99F5k0Ueo6GmT8l14eeSE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpRHVe-LGYalgwTvm4GwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=On%20the%20Security%20of%20Text-based%203D%20CAPTCHAs&f=false http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2363455 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404814000856 and the list keeps going. Google = your friend. Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Per AllyD. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• What is up with all of the web designers voting Delete when there is scientific and academic research sourcing this company and their software? Conflict of Interest? Leewells2000 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)