Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NextDNS

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 July 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MER-C 11:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NextDNS[edit]

[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)

The vast majority of the sources in the article are either self-published or user-generated content, and I'm unable to find other sourcing that supports the company being notable enough for an article. The couple of sources that are not UGC are all talking about one partnership the company has with Mozilla; I'm not sure this meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet WP:ORGIND anyway: any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) is not considered to be independent, and it looks like the sources are. Either way, it doesn't seem to be sustained coverage. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @1292simon: as the editor who moved this from draft to mainspace can you explain your rationale? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was mostly due to the coverage of the Firefox partnership, however I now see that WP:ORGIND might mean those sources do not establish notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability reqs per nom. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, @DeliciousInternetSpeeds:, have done most, if not all, of the work for this article. I can find sources, but they are not easily integrated in the article as they are recommendations. DNS does not usually get a lot of press to begin with, mostly just recommendations. Here are some examples: a guide for best dns servers, a German article that describes cname cloaking (that I will now add to the article), a linux news site, a guide incorporating NextDNS, a guide for adding encrypted dns on android that lists NextDNS, an informative piece that describes some functionality of NextDNS by comparing it to another service. This is my first Wikipedia article and I am learning as I go along, but this type of article seems particularly tricky to me due to the lack of actual press, as opposed to guides and recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousInternetSpeeds (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true to say that articles on subjects related to software are often difficult due to lack of referencing; however, that's not to say that we shouldn't hold them to those same standards. Looking through the links you've posted, none of them seem to me to approach significant coverage of NextDNS; merely mentioning the name isn't sufficient to merit an article, I'm afraid. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received some coverage. Among those is its partnership with Firefox as another provider. Sources indicated by DeliciousInternetSpeeds are reliable. And so are the ones in the article, though a number of primary articles should be removed. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing you've said you won't reply any further; I'd like to hear specifically which of the sources you feel are sufficiently significant, reliable and independent. Nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just some advice, Naypta. Replying to every vote that doesn't go your way is often considered WP:BADGERING and doesn't help your cause. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: Hello, thanks for the reply. I definitely don't think this is bludgeoning. I responded to two comments, one of which wasn't actually a declared !vote, but was from the author, who I wanted to reply to to try and help them understand, as they'd said it was their first article; the other I felt needed to be addressed because I don't think "My vote stands. I won't reply any further" is a helpful attitude to have anywhere on the encyclopedia. We're here for a collaborative editing process, and in order to do that, people must engage with each other and the processes as a whole. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct Naypta. Responding as you have done, is perfectly fine. WP:BLUD refers to someone forcing their POV through sheer volume of comments and refusing to "listen" to the opposing side and not accepting the interpretation of guidelines, etc. If anything, dropping a !vote and then disappearing and saying "I won't reply any further" especially if their viewpoint has been challenged could result in that !vote being disregarded altogether since we're not here to simply count !votes but to engage. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with 1292simon. I've had heated arguments in a few AfDs before. And instead of respecting and understanding my views which back up my vote, the nominator in a couple of AfDs argued with me and insisted that I haven't explained enough, even if in fact I did. And it came to the extent that the argument gets worse. I hate it when the nominator (or anyone who questions my vote) is bludgeoning. I'm not looking for an argument or a debate in every AfD. Arguing with me or anyone over my vote won't change anything at all and that's a sign of bludgeoning. And I never waste time in arguing people who have different votes than mine. This is why I end my reasoning with that statement. If I won't reply, then be it. I've explained enough to back up my viewpoint. So, don't force me to reply.

Everytime I participate on an AfD, I state my viewpoints (I do read the guidelines) on why I believe the article deserves to kept or deleted. Of course, I even listen to the bases of people who have different votes than mine. I really do. People who voted to delete it have their own viewpoints. And so do people, like me, who voted to keep it (or turn it to a redirect). Their delete stands, and so does my keep. The delete votes are regarded, and so are the keep votes; no matter what. So, it's best to respect my vote and viewpoints (as I respect those who voted to delete it) than to waste time arguing with me over those. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: The delete votes are regarded, and so are the keep votes; no matter what is explicitly not how these processes work. I suggest you re-read WP:!VOTE - these processes are emphatically not conducted on voting. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig Also you say Arguing with me or anyone over my vote won't change anything at all and that's a sign of bludgeoning is 100% wrong. I take your point that you've been at AfD's where you've patiently explained the reasoning for your !vote, but don't !vote at an AfD if you're not prepared to back up your reasoning and change your mind if you're wrong. Also, a closing admin reads the debate and if you don't support your reasoning because another editor has made some points or asked questions, then your !vote may not receive the weight it might deserve. None of that is "bludgeoning" in any sense of the meaning. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've heard of this, but it is no way notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ed6767 talk! 15:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 27 June 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.