Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:22, 20 February 2020

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nektony

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

Seemingly non-notable software company. Three of the four sources provided don't actually even mention the company by name, and don't provide much detail about their products beyond including them in standard 'useful software' type roundup lists. My own search turns up other similar lists or passing mentions, but nothing approaching the kind of depth required for WP:CORP. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP LibStar (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Journal

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

This appears to be a non-notable publication of...less than stellar repute as of late.

I can find no meaningful coverage of it in archives (including printed newspapers), other journals or books. The existing sources are...not great and clearly not independent. As an example this tech crunch piece has no author, this is a press release, this is really just about a data breach.

I don't know if it was originally the case but it doesn't appear that they have any editorial standards or oversight, though that's a discussion for WP:RSN for its use here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, a publication's reputation is not part of our notability criteria for media per se — a media outlet can become notable because of its unreliability, as witness Breitbart and The Drudge Report, if its unreliability makes it a subject of reliable source coverage about its unreliability. What's more definitive here, rather, is that the sources just aren't doing enough: TechCrunch is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all; the G&M "Interview with Christopher Hogg" is a Q&A interview in which an executive who's directly affiliated with the company is speaking about it in the first person, which isn't a notability-making source as it's not independent of the topic; the Metro piece is just a really short blurb that isn't substantive enough to count as a data point toward WP:GNG if it's this close to the best you can do; and the G&M "does your backup need backup" isn't so much notability-building coverage about the company — it just uses a data breach at the company as an anecdote in a column whose core subject is the general concept of how important it is to back up your business data, which is not the same thing as notability-building coverage. So the sources present here just aren't getting it over WP:GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 08:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat. I have nothing further to add. Non-notable born-digital blog and online message board. Doug Mehus T·C 16:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see references to this site at Media Bias/Fact Check, at Crunchbase, at Bloomberg, at MuckRack... the list goes on. There's a short profile of the founder and his company that runs the site here. The four citations that are already in the article seem legit to me.

I think this article contains valuable info, especially since our article specifies that Digital Journal relies on user-submitted content, and therefore, it's not suitable for use as a reliable source. That's exactly how I came across this discussion - I was searching for a source for another article and came across an article hosted by Digital Journal. When I saw this article, I knew I could not use this publication as a reliable source. So if we delete this article, we do a disservice not just to Wikipedia readers, but also to editors that may not be familiar with it. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Englehart: Regarding those sources, in turn: (1) Media Bias Fact Check LLC is a sketchy source, to say the least, not unlike Media Matters I suspect; (2) Crunchbase is essentially a self-published source, a directory of sorts in which anyone can add companies and it's semi-moderated by TechCrunch staff and appointed moderators (think: Wikipedia with edit requests for everything); (3) Bloomberg profiles are just that, profiles, compiled algorithmic-ally from multiple datasets and data sources; and (4) MuckRack, never heard of it, but again, non-qualifying reliable source. Doug Mehus T·C 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, for the purposes of establishing the encyclopedic notability of a topic, are not just "any website you can find that provides technical verification of information about the company": entries in business directories, for example, are not notability makers, and neither are podcasts or Q&A interviews in which a person directly associated with the topic is talking about themselves in the first person. To establish that a topic is notable enough for an article, a source has to represent journalism, from a real media outlet, that is written in the third person and analyzes the topic's significance independently of its own self-published claims about itself. That is, newspaper articles about the company and its accomplishments, books about the company and its accomplishments, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails basic notability tests and WP:WEBSITE notability. The sources provided don't meet basic test and I don't see anything better. Glendoremus (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luigikid Gaming

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

Apparently non-notable YouTuber. Possible A7 candidate, but I'm not super great with finding non-English sources. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article about him was also deleted on German Wiki for the same notability issues. There are no mentions in reliable independent German sources - just social media and user generated sites. Less Unless (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any notability at all. Like the nominator, I was also debating going for A7 but I've seen people argue that the viewership figures on these sorts of articles constitute a claim of importance. Either way - fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvva

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the company. Its just an insurance app company. None of the sources establish anything. Plus, the article is seriously written as an advert. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After two pages of Google searches I found the following, and they seem to meet WP:GNG. https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/03/cuvva-raises-15m/ https://www.eu-startups.com/2019/12/london-based-cuvva-raises-e17-5-million-series-a-funding-to-launch-new-pay-monthly-insurance-product/ https://www.altfi.com/article/5825_cuvva-appoints-lloyds-of-london-chairman-to-chair-its-board https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/34550/lloyds-of-london-chair-joins-insurtech-startup-cuvva https://www.ft.com/content/3546c692-e9c4-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55 https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/motoring/pay-as-you-go-insurance-explained/ If a re-write is required, mark it as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TechCrunch says that there is no consensus that TechCrunch is a reliable source, and may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. The author, Steve O'Hear is staff and he appears to declare his CoI. The extent to which the article is based on public relations material from Curvva is less clear. A LOT of it is just quoting the company. Is O'Hear actually doing any kind of reporting or analysis? I don't see it. Vexations (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. The TechCrunch article clearly doesn't cut it for the reasons given by Vexations. The citations to awards don't either. Which really doesn't leave much. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber)

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

Youtube gamer with almost no RS for GNG (outside of blogs and their own youtube account etc.). There was a small "event" when he was copystriked by Warner Chappell Music in 2019 for violations, but even that generated no quality RS on the event. Despite his "1.4 billion youtube views", no proper RS wants to do any piece on him (unlike genuine youtube stars which appear in RS); why would Wikipedia? Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find passing mentions in RSes. --Masem (t) 16:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - the current sources are not independent. It seems to be one of hundreds of YouTube channels about Minecraft. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 12:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Mumbo Jumbo' is an awful search term as it is such a commonly used phrase, and his actual name per the current article is 'Oliver Brotherhood' which isn't much better as Assasin's Creed is so popular. That being said the only article that I could find with a significant mention was a couple of paragraphs in this [1].Ym2X (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 redirect to View Askew Productions. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Askew

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

No evidence this podcast is notable for WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Kept in 2006 when everything was notable if it existed, today standards are a bit tougher. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to View Askew Productions (with an extremely selective merge) lest we get another relist. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to View Askew Productions. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Kaweendra (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sandstein 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Profs

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

Promotional appearing article for a company that seems to fail GNG. Not notable. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The article passes WP:GNG, and the organization has received notable awards. --BonkHindrance (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article with no WP:RS. Dorama285 00:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything in the article or elsewhere that is remotely sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, run-of-the-mill minor start-up. Renata (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are multiple independent reliable sources present which talks about this is start-up[1],[2], [3], [4] etc. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Moved to Draft:Ekahau Site Survey, pending improvements sufficient to remedy the concerns raised in the discussion. BD2412 T 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ekahau Site Survey

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

Page reads like a commercial brochure. Also notability concerns. Oska (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify (modified as per end of this discussion) - Product only. Not notable. Could not find any WP:RS -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA I note the keep responses below, and reaffirm my view for delete. Widely known among professionals is not notability for Wikipedia. The software gets mentions, but these do not constitute coverage establishing notability of the software. I would invite those arguing for keep to present WP:THREE, that is the three best sources for establishing notability of this software. If there are three suitable sources, I would revisit my view above - but I cannot find any. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me give it a try.

In this short collection: Proceedings of international conferences (Intel and others), a book published by John Wiley & Sons, an article in a popular computer magazine, a MIT magazine publication, etc.

• The Twelfth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications

• Modeling user movement habits for intelligent indoor tracking. In: Proc. of the 3rd Annual Intel European Research and Innovation Conference (ERIC-2010): Building a Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Society through Research and Innovation partnerships, Intel Ireland

• 9 free Windows apps that can solve Wi-Fi woes - Computerworld Magazine

• Technology Review: MIT's Magazine of Innovation, Volume 106, Issues 6-10

• Mobile Computing Deployment and Management

• Journal on Wireless Networks Communication

I hope you'll find at least some of these sources suitable enough. There are scores of other books and publications. WiFiEngineer (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WiFiEngineer. The idea of WP:THREE is to present your three best sources. If these establish notability, the matter is settled. You present six sources here, so I assumed the first three were your three best, and looked at these.

Ref 1, (Cullen et al., 2016) has: ", a survey of the indoor positioning capacity of the Wi-Fi infrastructure of the LyIT campus was undertaken. The Ekahau Site Survey (ESS) [8] application was used to complete the survey. ESS is the industry standard for designing, planning and maintaining Wi-Fi network systems". This evidences that ESS is an industry standard, but the ref is not specifically about ESS, it is about indoor positioning using cooperative techniques. ESS is used because it is an industry standard but there is no discussion of why ESS is that standard. Nevertheless there is this paragraph that points to something specific about ESS: "An interesting facet of the ESS application is its ability to configure the output to measure Wi-Fi connectivity capacity of a given area, with a given infrastructure, while at the same time measure the infrastructures capability to position devices within that same surveyed area."

All in all, I find this reference is reasonable, but does not establish notability on its own. Using the software because it is widely used and has a nice feature is not itself notability, nor is mention in a paper. It is relevant, however, that the researchers wrote the above about it.

Ref 2 is a poster presentation, "Predictive Indoor Tracking by the Probabilistic Modelling of Human Movement Habits." ESS is merely mentioned as being the software used. What the software provides is described, but this does not establish notability.

Ref 3 is a Computer world article about Heatmapper, and ESS is mentioned as being the full featured pay-for version of Heatmapper. This is a secondary source (which is good) and describes Heatmapper. By extension it provides some support to the notability of ESS, but the mention is brief, and this article is about Heatmapper, not ESS. Wikipedia has no page for Heatmapper, but it is mentioned on the ESS page. If this is one of the best three sources, I am still concerned that it is not really about ESS at all, which does not speak to its notability.

In summary, I am not convinced by these three refs that the software is notable, yet I think it does move us forward. Question: Is there a page that this page could be merged with? Perhaps Wireless site survey? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Sirfurboy. Regarding "I assumed the first three were your three best", no, there was no particular order, sorry.

I'm by no means an experienced WP editor, so the logic behind ranking the references it terms of their usefulness for this particular purpose often evades me. This is why I listed more than three references, hoping that you could take a look at all of them and point me to the good ones. Would you mind looking at Ref 5 and Ref 6? As for your question about merging, I tried that many years ago, and my attempt was not received very well. Something like "WP is not a shopping directory, get out of here." Frankly, I wasn't (and I'm not now) prepared for a lengthy discussion or, heaven forbid, an edit war if I tried that again. I simply created a stand-alone page for Ekahau, as well as summarized the characteristics of the leading Wi-Fi survey tools in a table (and try to keep it up-to-date).WiFiEngineer (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 is an edition of MIT's Technology Review, which would be a good source, but it is dependent on what it says. What this one tells us about is the company, Ekahau, produce an indoor site survey product, one of three listed companies providing this. Again, we have evidence here that people use the software and recommend it, but there is nothing here that makes it notable. The Symbols technology product does not get a page on Wikipedia, and although that argument is WP:OTHER, and so flawed, it does lead to another observation: Symbol technologies the company does get a page. Would a solution here be to rename the page to Ekahau the company, and have the product as a section of that? Is this the company's only product? Or is the company notable for other reasons? I have not researched the company as a whole at all, but if the company is notable, all this information fits nicely on their page.

Ref 5 is a book describing how to do site surveys and takes the reader through installation and use of Heatmapper. As above, Heatmapper is not ESS, although it is related. The book is essentially an instruction manual though. It is not showing notability so much as usefulness.

Ref 6 has some error in the URL. I cannot load it.

Again in summary, these have not established notability, yet I am not convinced we want to delete this information entirely. I think it should be merged or redirected somewhere. As the company page does not exist, we cannot merge or redirect to that, and I confess I do not know if "rename" is an appropriate AfD outcome. Instead I am going to modify my position to "draftify". In draft the page can be reworked/renamed as appropriate. Its sources can be improved or its content merged elsewhere. Information will not be lost, and writers will have more time to establish notability for the software. I hope that is a suitable compromise. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Ekahau has only one flagship line of business, and that's site survey applications and hardware (that includes Ekahau Pro, SideKick, Heatmapper, etc). So renaming the page to Ekahau (company) and correcting the contents accordingly sounds like a good solution to me. Draftifying, i.e. effectively removing the article from the user space, appears to be an overkill. The article is not *that* bad, and I'm sure it can be improved by the community, myself included. Time permitting, I'll easily add more references confirming the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiFiEngineer (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see zero concerns regarding notability here. It is, indeed, a widely known product among Wi-Fi professionals. If you ask them to name the leading product, Ekahau will be #1 or #2. As for reliable sources, click on the Google books and Google scholar links above. This will give you hundreds of sources, most of which would be quite reliable and vendor-neutral publications and books. I believe about half of the references for this article were added by me, and as someone who added them, I can tell you that these books are on my bookshelf and they are ABCs for any wireless specialist. Also, this page gets about 25 views every day, which, I guess, is a rare situation for a page that is allegedly not notable WiFiEngineer (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing a notable company. There are many press releases as one would expect. The nominator states: Page reads like a commercial brochure, but I think that promotional language can be cleaned up WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, the article is for a software application, not a company, and so the notability question is about that application, not the company that makes it. Oska (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, notability isn't determined by asking some "professionals" what products they like. Nor is it determined by how many pages views an article gets. Second, press leases aren't reliable sources and that's all there seems to be on Google. Also, if the promotional language is cleaned up there probably won't be much of an article left. So the argument could be made for "delete and start over", but I'm going to leave that up to others to determine. Although, I will say the more the reasoning to keep it leans towards things like "It's notable because professionals say it is", the more I'm inclined to go with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, significant coverage exists.IceFishing (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't just require the existence of sources, it needs the right kind of sources. So what sources do you think are sufficient enough for it to be kept? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage is just press leases or trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong lack of WP:RS. Dorama285 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the discussion above between WiFiEngineer (article creator) and Sirfurboy over potential sources to show notability. Particularly Sirfurboy in taking the time to review sources put forward by WiFiEngineer. I agree with Sirfurboy that these sources do not make a good case for notability and maintain my position that the article should be deleted. In regards to preserving the information in the article I would like to point out that WiFiEngineer has also created the article Comparison of wireless site survey applications and most of the information about this product is repeated there in a feature table format. Any relevant information that is in this article that isn't shown in that table could be added as a text entry for the product under the table (the same could also be done for other products shown in that table).

Wireless site survey is certainly a notable topic wikipedia should cover and we do. We then also link at the bottom of that article to the aforementioned Comparison of wireless site survey applications. I think this is the appropriate place for where a product of its stature should be documented (in a product comparison article thus giving more of a neutral point of view) and, to repeat, any information that has not been captured there about this product's features can be merged into that article and then this article deleted. Oska (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this product has mentions in Google Books[5] and Google Scholar[6] which should be evaluated as well. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, come on, man, you've been here long enough to knows that WP:GHITS is a crap argument to make at AfD. Which of those mentions constitutes significant coverage? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos but as you know that WP:GHITS is an essey. Anyway the article has not been improved yet with any additional sources and as RoySmith found out those sources are WP:ROUTINE so, I am leaning towards a Delete. --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources; they're mostly routine coverage / product reviews in niche industry magazines, so fails WP:NCORP. The article itself has substantial copyright violations; clearing them would essentially require WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the !delete comments above, no independent secondary sources to convince me of notability. The article itself is a mess as well, lots of the (primary) sources aren’t even about this particular product but are WP:COATRACK for other products by the same company. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake Aisyah

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

Fails WP:GNG. Supported mainly by primary sources and no clear indication of the importance of the subject. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs arguments, not votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards won do not add to notability. gnews reveals only small mentions. as nom said, article based on primary sources. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. I see the merge suggestion but the total lack of sourcing speaks against it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ODers

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

Complete lack of reliable sources and a failure to demonstrate notability. Content is minimal; I don't think this warrants either a merge or a redirect to Cybersex, so I'm putting it forward for outright deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have a section Internet_relationship#Online_gaming that seems an appropriate target for a merge of a one sentence definition and a redirect. There is a techjunkie article that discusses the practice and why it is a problem for "kid-friendly" MMOs like Roblox. That might be enough verifiability for a one-sentence merge. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable, No reliable sources!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Dthomsen8. From Analog Horror, (Communicate) 21:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Other XfDs

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Internet==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nektony}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digital_Journal_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigikid Gaming}}