Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teambox (2nd nomination)
- 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 keep. henrik•talk 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Teambox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to pass WP:NSOFT Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I see no reasons for this conclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reference needed to complete List_of_collaborative_software listing, which includes similar hosted and open-source projects. Open-source project is active Github and followed by 1280 people as of today. Michokest (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— Michokest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Karlgoldfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- Karlgoldfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- 75.208.69.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 88.6.236.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- Sdepabloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- Ilpopu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- --Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per NSOFT: Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. mabdul 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NSOFT is an essay , and is not a valid notability argument for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If NSOFT is an essay, then we have simply no decline reason until now. Read the nom again. mabdul 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Software applications fall under Wikipedia:Notability CORP. Remember responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, Not the nominator asking for deletion, which seems clear in this case..Teambox fails WP:CORP--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please draw any reason why WP:NCORP should be applied regardless the scope definition given in WP:NCORP? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of this.. Wikipedia:Software notability. Although it too is an essay and failed to make it as a notability guideline, it was proposed as a actual guideline and years of community discussion and rfc's determined WP:CORP should be applied. Anyway..NSOFT was created a few years ago, not sure what it is suppose to be. . Oddly, of the 105 edits performed on NSOFT 88 were by one user...--Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any indication of WP:CORP being the policy for software. The statement in WP:Software notability says it is subject to WP:PRODUCT, which doesn't impose any additional barrier for products (in contrast to companies). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of this.. Wikipedia:Software notability. Although it too is an essay and failed to make it as a notability guideline, it was proposed as a actual guideline and years of community discussion and rfc's determined WP:CORP should be applied. Anyway..NSOFT was created a few years ago, not sure what it is suppose to be. . Oddly, of the 105 edits performed on NSOFT 88 were by one user...--Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please draw any reason why WP:NCORP should be applied regardless the scope definition given in WP:NCORP? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Software applications fall under Wikipedia:Notability CORP. Remember responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, Not the nominator asking for deletion, which seems clear in this case..Teambox fails WP:CORP--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If NSOFT is an essay, then we have simply no decline reason until now. Read the nom again. mabdul 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NSOFT is an essay , and is not a valid notability argument for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per reasons above. --extra999 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article has been repeatedly and relentlessly recreated by MULTIPLE WP:SPA accounts (see above), lead by its founder (michokest (talk · contribs).. for the sole and promary purpose of promoting Teambox see the Deletion log;
- 20:29, 22 October 2010 deleted "Teambox" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion A7)
- 15:24, 19 July 2010 deleted "Teambox" (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Multiple reasons)
- 15:18, 14 January 2010 deleted "Teambox" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teambox)
- 22:39, 17 August 2009 deleted "Teambox" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- References given are to small trade publications, socialmedia, press releases and splogs that do not confer notability; AND do not count as reliable sources. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What was that? WP:NCORP is inapplicable here (article not about company). I would also love to hear from you, whether ReadWriteWeb, TechCrunch, PC World, LifeHacker, Expansión and Gigaom are splogs, social media or press releases. Also FYI essays contain ideas and reasons, and as such are much better rationales then vague statement like "AND do not count as reliable sources" (whatever it was supposed to mean). El País – unreliable source??? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those are Notable websites in themselves, however, the bloggers appear to all be "freelance Blog" posters with opinions, no real fact checking and plenty of WP:OR. expansion.com is spanish language (this is the English wikipedia), mentions 9 other dotcom firms and clearly states in that article... "According to Pablo Villalba..." would fail as "independent". Oh, the El País article.. is
http://blogs.elpais.com..., and blogs are not considererd reliable sources....--Hu12 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- All of those sites are generally regarded as reliable sources (you can check for previous software-related AfDs for plenty of examples. You can also see WP:NEWSBLOG on why this El País-hosted blog post also counts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those are Notable websites in themselves, however, the bloggers appear to all be "freelance Blog" posters with opinions, no real fact checking and plenty of WP:OR. expansion.com is spanish language (this is the English wikipedia), mentions 9 other dotcom firms and clearly states in that article... "According to Pablo Villalba..." would fail as "independent". Oh, the El País article.. is
- What was that? WP:NCORP is inapplicable here (article not about company). I would also love to hear from you, whether ReadWriteWeb, TechCrunch, PC World, LifeHacker, Expansión and Gigaom are splogs, social media or press releases. Also FYI essays contain ideas and reasons, and as such are much better rationales then vague statement like "AND do not count as reliable sources" (whatever it was supposed to mean). El País – unreliable source??? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note, that ReadWriteWeb doesn't accept user-submitted content at all, and AFAIK TechCrunch and LifeHacker are also subject to editorial oversight. Don't make judgment on reliability based on principle of delivery of source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A full PC world review is a RS for notability ; the other sources are adequate also, and are the ones we routinely use here. Not everything that calls itself a blog is a blog in the pejorative sense that our guidelines seem to refer to , if you use them without actual examination and thinking. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tho only relevant question in this case is: is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I can't see how PC World, LifeHacker, Expansión and El País wouldn't count as reliable sources in the wikipedia sense. And non-English sources count toward notability just as much as English sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (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.