Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wherigo (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 delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whereigo

[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)

Stub article fails to meet notability criteria PTMY (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Had PROD tag added 2011-12-29, but was deleted on 2012-01-02, during holidays. Notability tag was added 2013-01-20, and deleted as of 2016-04-01. However, no reference is to a reliable independent source has been added. Only first party promotion or site links are included. It is still a stub article. Redirect to Geocaching seems appropriate. News search has very few (20) results, the one in English is not relevant, and none are recent. PTMY (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A proposed merge into Geocaching, which already covered Whereigo briefly, has been prepared. PTMY (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article could be improved and provide more information, but it has had 204 page views in the past 30 days. The subject seems to be relevant enough to attract a good bunch of people looking for encyclopedic info about it on a regular basis. --Savig (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes, ~10-20 page views per day is essentially zero, unless crawlers are excluded from the statistics. The Geocaching page has about 800 views per day; Cat or Dog average over 7,000 per day, for comparison. PTMY (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are articles much more popular than this in Wikipedia, but there are also many articles with far less page views than this, which suggests that most page views in this article are real people. In other words, if we delete this article we would be depriving more than a hundred people every month from finding the encyclopedic article they are looking for. --Savig (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page views really don’t factor into whether or not we delete articles. You’ll probably want to refocus your arguments to focus more on whether the WP:GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to show that Wherigo is not a dead subject that nobody is interested in, as some might come to think. With regards to WP:GNG, I think most materials available out there on this subject are fan stuff, tutorials, forums, etc., but I find there are also some sources that might satisfy the conditions of being reliable (ie., written by people who are authoritative on the subject), having significantly covered the topic and being independent of the subject, like:
http://www.wherigofoundation.com/

https://books.google.es/books?id=zQb9OUxIMLwC&pg=PT337&dq=wherigo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj08oKYv9_gAhWm34UKHbHCAUsQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=wherigo&f=false

http://www.westozgeocaching.net.au/what-is-geocaching/how-do-i/how-to-wherigo/

...

Some more in other languages as well. Not sure if this meets WP:GNG, but I leave it there for consideration. --Savig (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t imagine a valid rationale for them being Wikipedia-level reliable sources. Two are clearly amateur fan sites, and ones a book that’s not giving me a preview at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to locate any dedicated third party coverage that would help it meet the WP:GNG. Just small talk on message boards, which doesn’t help. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a press release or two, but otherwise am in the same boat as Sergecross. Delete. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2019 (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.