Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymbal (app)

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. A divided discussion. However, the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbal (app)[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please explain to me how the article fails WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. TheKaphox T 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- press coverage, app store links, crunchbase, angel list, like references. trivial mention in big media, once in a lifetime thing! BBC article is hardly about this app. wikipedia can not become directory for apps. if they are just apps, probably in near future it can be. right now it is just promotions. even intentions of writing such article is questionable! Same arguments with all the spam Wikipedia has become. one coverage , just one coverage in popular media is not that tough, when there are online version present. All such media need to write articles about anything they come across. Even such writers depends on such company to write about them. one coverage hurts no one! Light2021 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unsurprisingly, you're giving the same argument as countless other AfDs you have nominated. Firstly, both app store links are simply to cite the release dates presented in the infobox. This is the same as the articles of many other social media platforms, such as Instagram. I don't see how CrunchBase and AngelList somehow mean the article is promotional - they are only used as references for the financial investors. Having little mention in "big media" does not mean that an article is promotional. Irrespective of that, there are four valid references to news outlets such as Forbes, the BBC and CNET. I am also unsure of what you are referring to by "once in a lifetime thing". Everything else you have said in your response is irrelevant. The AfD discussion is to discuss if/how the article violates WP:PROMO - it is not a forum for you to vent about Wikipedia. TheKaphox T 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you really read BBC article or just mentioning here because the website is BBC? I doubt your research and study here. Please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read it, and whilst the coverage within it is minimal, it comes from a very notable source. None of the links you have presented so far are relevant, because you have failed to explain how the article is WP:PROMO or WP:ARTSPAM. The onus is on you. TheKaphox T 21:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You read it, still asking what is there to Keep this article? Minimal BBC? There is nothing there. Light2021 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So the fact that it is not extensively mentioned in the BBC is a reason to remove the article? No. Don't be silly. TheKaphox T 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! read this from WP:GNG : Notable topics attract attention over a sufficiently significant time period

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION.

If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Light2021 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a basic WP:BEFORE turns up plenty of WP:SIGCOV, including in Forbes, Tech Times, and CNET. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

highly doubtful whether you even read those articles or keep citing WP:BEFORE or WP:GNG for every argument of AfD. you missed to mention Minimal BBC article :) do not just read which website they belong to.. read what is there written actually Light2021 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can convince people with the merits of your arguments, or you can resort to personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Unfortunately, you appear to have chosen the latter approach. It is highly unlikely to help you effectively convince others of the merits of your point of view. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see Personal Attack. Citing sources and guideline links only. like WP:GNG : Notable topics attract attention over a sufficiently significant time period

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. Light2021 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted "highly doubtful whether you even read those articles" as a personal attack, or at the very least a significant failure to WP:AGF. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is about Cymbal (app) and not about me. Any other thoughts or discussions are welcome! as per WP:AGF :) Light2021 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes source is by a staff writer and is 17 detailed paragraphs long. That is clearly significant coverage and Forbes is a highly respected business journal. I read every word. The CNET source is also strong and discusses the software in detail. On the other hand, the BBC source is a passing mention in an article about Instagram, so is of little value in evaluating notability. The totality of the independent coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Forbes covered this one. Just one Source can not make anything Encyclopedia Notable. and CNET? is there any better Press Release available. CNET? is it even a journalistic platform? or Even I can go and write about myself there or ask the author to brag about me for any kind of products? Online version for such media is always questionable, as they are highly unreliable and written to get Daily chunks of articles on their website, they can write about anything in this world. Does not necessary to be notable! BBC is mentioned to mislead people, as people only look for website link and discussions are over. Where are the discussion about " New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION" Light2021 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: You are wrong about CNET. Very wrong. It is a reliable source for technology topics, with professional editorial control and a good reputation. It has been in business for 22 years. Your statement that anyone can get news coverage there just by asking and that they are highly unreliable is false. Please point to consensus on the Reliable sources noticeboard saying that CNET news coverage is not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article does not have a promotional tone, and the topic meets WP:GNG as per coverage in CNET, Digital Trends and Forbes (see also page 2 of the Forbes article, and note that it is written by a staff writer for Forbes, not a contributor.) More coverage would be ideal, but these sources (found from a brief search) demonstrate that notability is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP based on the above discussions. This AFD was one of a string of cookie-cutter nominations by the same user. It is disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is terrible advertorial coverage. When the same particular phrase is used in all coverage, it's clearly PR push stuff, not organic coverage of a newsworthy thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Could you provide any evidence that CNET, Digital Trends and Forbes were compensated by Cymbal to publish these articles? Per the actual definition of what comprises an advertorial, these do not appear to be such. Also, these articles do not state "paid content", "paid advertisement" or such at all, as advertorials often do, which various publications state as disclaimers in order to maintain journalistic objectivity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that - I claimed "it's clearly PR push stuff, not organic coverage of a newsworthy thing". The additional specifier is yours. Clear churnalism is not a suitable basis for claims made in Wikipedia's voice, even if you think you can make an excuse to include them - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Will you please explain in detail why you believe that the 17 paragraph article by a Forbes staff writer is "churnalism" and not independent reporting? Did you find a press release that was closely paraphrased by the Forbes writer? Do you see strong evidence that this is not independent reporting? If so, please present that evidence and I will change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:: I pledge to also reconsider my !vote if you provide evidence, as Cullen³²⁸ has requested. Looking forward to your evidence! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes article is not questionable. If only "ONE" Article makes a wikipedia page, then we should make this a newspaper or magazine. Can you cite any other references similar to Forbes coverage for being Encyclopedic notable. as per David, he never said every article is non-notable. But one article is not enough to establish the notability. On that note the coverage is already with Forbes. Why do you need to write same thing on Wikipedia. It is not Press Distribution channel. Light2021 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising, WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, considering everything the article lists is exactly PR and PR-based, such as focusing heavily with its clients and business partners, to then listing the company's own information, that is blatancy and this alone for advertising the company itself; there is also no sensible SNOW Keep here because the Keep votes are then not actually acknowledging this or showing any considerations of it; the listed links here are then also consisting of exactly this, so it makes no sensible defenses or claims of saying "PR, it's not PR, but here are some PR sources to make it better". Once we start blatantly acknowledging PR exists but refusing to take actions because of this, it shows how we cannot be trusted and assured to remove advertising when found and needing deletion, this is the case. Examining all of this then shows there would not be any clear signs of confirming an assured substantial and non-PR article, therefore we should and shall not make any compromises. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable application / startup company. I don't see much coverage beyond launch / funding publicity. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This short article does not have a promotional tone at all, not even a trace. It is written in an objective and unbiased style, and is entirely free of any sort of puffery. It would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Also the age of a topic is not associated with notability. See WP:ITSTOONEW for some examples that delineate this line of reasoning. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 07:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to clarify what exactly "per above" means because there has been exhaustive analysis, including showing the PR and advertising sources and information (which goes to the blatancy of republishing company PR), and there is no inherited notability from named mentions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 25 October 2016 (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.