Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekshare

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peekshare

[edit]


Related AfDs:
Peekshare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are mainly PR. But, Silicon Week and Phone Arena are enough, in my opinion. Faintly passes WP:GNG. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Google is really not helpful when it comes to searching news. This compares the app with Snapchat and Instagram and shares the info about the app's USP being "targeted to users who do not want their apps to drain phone data." This is certainly not PR. Hence, faint keep. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources like El Universal and PCWorld indicate notability, but there's not a great deal of coverage beyond PR. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Google is the best source however for searching for news, aside from searching at every single major new source itself, and even the L2Inc being questionable as a convincing source, it's only merely a limited number of sentences, finishing with some interviewed information. The two sources later listed aboce, are then simple guides showing what the company is and what it offers, it's not substantial coverage and the vote itself states it's PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I want to note that not only is it clear this article is part of a PR article campaign, it shows in that it has been contributed by several SPA accounts, the last one then actually removing the AfD nomination template with "Citing journalists who choose to cover an app in response to press releases where the journalists took the time and effort to interview the company's founder are not "mere press releases", which is not in fact convincing because simply stating that journalists talked about it, is by any and all means not a defense or guarantee that no PR or PR intentions were involved, quite the contrary, it shows it is all PR in that none of the sources go anywhere else but PR and also what the company would only say about itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's a publicity campaign, but it seems possible there is some COI involved. Certainly two SPAa are not experienced with WIkipedia. The article creator did not correctly use the translated article template, and now a second SPA does not seem to understand minor edits, the difference between a PROD and an AFD, where to use or how to fill in a PRODFULL template, or where to contest an AFD. Meters (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your talk page. For the 4th time, you were removing the AFD notice, not contesting a PROD. Meters (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comment of stating that removing the template was necessary because it complies with notability and is convincing is questionable because the concerns have been listed as it is, including with my own PROD which was extensive and specific about it; this article, along with a closely linked article which has since now been deleted, all suggest this is simply a PR campaign, since the comment itself goes as far to state "that journalists interviewed them!" Also, saying that this is in fact a PR campaign is a fact, because it shows the concerns, one of which is getting largely noticed in that this is only being touched by SPA users. Once we start making excuses and compromising about accepting such PR, Wikipedia is damned as an ad-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am new. Isn't one of the wikpedian principles "don't bit the newbies?" I am learning how to contribute to this AfD process and apologize for my incorrect deletions. I am attempting to use the correct AfD process. I thought this was a PROD because that is mentioned in the first comment on the AfD page: "Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)"
Why are some comments suggesting that interviewing the subject of an article contrary to good journalism practices? I am deeply confused as to what point about noteworthiness that comment is trying to make. Please help me understand. Peekshare has been covered by multiple independent sources. These sources are verifiable and have been cited in the article. The terms PR and Public Relations do not appear in the notability page. Please explain how these concerns relate to the notability of AfD process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Mbridge3000 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Keep "K.e.coffman cited WP:PROMO but this article does not violate that policy. The article has a neutral point of view. The information is written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics are verifiable and independent. Those in favor of deletion on PROMO grounds need to explain how this article violates the terms of the policy. "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Mbridge3000 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a real product, and whether or not the article is intended for publicity purposes I don't see the article content as being excessively promotional. However, I'm not finding sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article and others I've found are generally blog and press release type coverage of a company's new app and do not establish notability. Meters (talk) 04:25, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peekshare&oldid=1136470344"