Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrivacyTools: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:50, 14 November 2019

PrivacyTools

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

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

Most sources are unreliable or non-independent. All RS give only passing mention, fails WP:SIGCOV. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded this article with more relevant information and references and removed all unreliable sources. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. I want to highlight the sources that the sources #2, #3, #9, and #11 are self-published by the company and fail WP:GNG. The other sources only have about three sentences describing the site: do they pass WP:SIGCOV? See WP:WEBCRIT, which states that a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site is trivial coverage, and WP:SIGCOV, which states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback, it is actually very helpful for me. The self-published sources were included to back up some facts in the article and not to establish notability, which I think seems acceptable (WP:PRIMARYCARE), but you are right that it isn't applicable for this discussion. #1 is a research paper on privacy tools and recommendation portals, and looks into privacytools.io in three separate sections, so while it isn't the main topic of that paper I think it meets WP:SIGCOV. #6 mentions PrivacyTools in three separate paragraphs, and in each one details the criteria the site uses to make its recommendations in different software categories (which I think is more than merely a passing mention or a brief summary). #5 I'm on the fence about, it brings up the site in 3 separate paragraphs as an authority on VPN providers, but it mostly seems to be referring to sites like PrivacyTools in general, so I don't know if it's specific enough. When I have another moment I will reevaluate the other sources to determine if they establish notability, and I'll try to find more sources that cover the website in-depth. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Keep''' I've expanded this article with more relevant information and references and removed all unreliable sources. [[User:JonahAragon|Jonah Aragon]] <sup>&#124;[[User_talk:JonahAragon|Talk]]&#124;</sup> 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' OK. I want to highlight the sources that the sources #2, #3, #9, and #11 are self-published by the company and fail [[WP:GNG]]. The other sources only have about three sentences describing the site: do they pass [[WP:SIGCOV]]? See [[WP:WEBCRIT]], which states that {{tq|a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site}} is trivial coverage, and [[WP:SIGCOV]], which states that {{tq|"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.}} Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. <span style="font-family:Times; color:#2a52be">''From''&nbsp;[[User:UnnamedUser|''UnnamedUser'']]&nbsp;[[User talk:UnnamedUser|<sup>''(open&nbsp;talk&nbsp;page)''</sup>]]</span> 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: <span style="font-family:Times; color:#2a52be">''From''&nbsp;[[User:UnnamedUser|''UnnamedUser'']]&nbsp;[[User talk:UnnamedUser|<sup>''(open&nbsp;talk&nbsp;page)''</sup>]]</span> 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
-::Thank you so much for your feedback, it is actually very helpful for me. The self-published sources were included to back up some facts in the article and not to establish notability, which I think seems acceptable ([[WP:PRIMARYCARE]]), but you are right that it isn't applicable for this discussion. #1 is a research paper on privacy tools and recommendation portals, and looks into privacytools.io in three separate sections, so while it isn't the main topic of that paper I think it meets [[WP:SIGCOV]]. #7 mentions PrivacyTools in three separate paragraphs, and in each one details the criteria the site uses to make its recommendations in different software categories (which I think is more than merely a passing mention or a brief summary). #6 I'm on the fence about, it brings up the site in 3 separate paragraphs as an authority on VPN providers, but it mostly seems to be referring to sites like PrivacyTools in general, so I don't know if it's specific enough. When I have another moment I will reevaluate the other sources to determine if they establish notability, and I'll try to find more sources that cover the website in-depth. [[User:JonahAragon|Jonah Aragon]] <sup>&#124;[[User_talk:JonahAragon|Talk]]&#124;</sup> 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
+::Thank you so much for your feedback, it is actually very helpful for me. The self-published sources were included to back up some facts in the article and not to establish notability, which I think seems acceptable ([[WP:PRIMARYCARE]]), but you are right that it isn't applicable for this discussion. #1 is a research paper on privacy tools and recommendation portals, and looks into privacytools.io in three separate sections, so while it isn't the main topic of that paper I think it meets [[WP:SIGCOV]]. #6 mentions PrivacyTools in three separate paragraphs, and in each one details the criteria the site uses to make its recommendations in different software categories (which I think is more than merely a passing mention or a brief summary). #5 I'm on the fence about, it brings up the site in 3 separate paragraphs as an authority on VPN providers, but it mostly seems to be referring to sites like PrivacyTools in general, so I don't know if it's specific enough. When I have another moment I will reevaluate the other sources to determine if they establish notability, and I'll try to find more sources that cover the website in-depth. [[User:JonahAragon|Jonah Aragon]] <sup>&#124;[[User_talk:JonahAragon|Talk]]&#124;</sup> 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)