Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apify

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I am unimpressed by the Keep !votes from the inexperienced (canvassed?) participants. Those more familiar with our guidelines (and unaffiliated with its subject) unanimously argued for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

edit

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

Apify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the opening paragraph implies that the article is about a web scraping platform, in reality the article is devoted to the company. On that basis I've evaluated the sourcing according to whether it establishes notability of the company. The criteria established by the guidelines requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sourcing meets the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments referring to the above list of 13 URLs are not persuasive. As for the URLs:
    1. [1] – no significant coverage
    2. [2] – SIGCOV about the company, but not about the product. The website offers paid articles, with no mention of them being indicated as such.
    3. [3] – no coverage on the product, very little relevant coverage on the company (most of the information is routine)
    4. [4] – no SIGCOV
    5. [5] – an interview; therefore the source is neither secondary nor independent
    6. [6] – has SIGCOV, but seems to be a paid article
    7. [7] – mostly routine coverage
    8. [8] – an interview with an employee
    9. [9] – has some good coverage about the product
    10. [10] – an interview with one of the founders
    11. [11] – no SIGCOV
    12. [12] – paywalled
    13. [13] – no SIGCOV
Overall, these sources provide no sustained significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apify&oldid=1270851427"