Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmCharts

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. Michig (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmCharts[edit]

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

Couldn't find sources that show subject meets WP:CORP NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would not agree. What about references from Moz blog as well as from Smashing Magazine? They are both highly valuable and trusted sources. Fredericmckeyso (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:RS - their own website and wordpress blogs are not reliable sources Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Some sources may not look really reliable, like blogs, however referenced domains authorities are really high which means that they are valuable by the internet community and readers. For instance MozBlog as well as Smashing Magazine has a domain authoryti of 92/100. In addition, I've noticed that this article has already been cited/linked in other wikipedia articles which shows that it is useful for the community.JohnsonMay (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — JohnsonMay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Although this is a new article and could be considered a stub, the sources included are not suitable because they are blog posts without editorial oversight. The article was created by a WP:SPA, and the "do not delete" vote is the only edit from a user created on Nov. 13. LaMona (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your comments. Having regard to the comments I added some additional, more valuable references. I am looking forward to hear if there is anything else in this article that could be improved. Fredericmckeyso (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredericmckeyso - Thanks for making the effort. However, the only three third-party resources there do not add up to notability, unfortunately. #2 is an industry awards site that is a "pay to play" where you pay to submit your site and it may win an award. It is a nice interview, but not really about the software, and one such piece doesn't establish notability. #8 is a mere mention in a single sentence. #12 is one of 75 tools listed, with a short paragraph. The result is that this software is no more notable than the other 74, nor than the many that are listed in #8. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But then how come brands like LucidChart with very similar tipe of references and less information can be in Wikipedia and very similar brands to them like AmCharts with similar tipe of content and references cannot? Fredericmckeyso (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredericmckeyso: They're not "very similar". LifeHacker, Techcrunch, PC World, and GigaOM are far superior sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 15:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't they just product reviews and comparison? I agree these are stronger refereces, but content in them is similar, isn't it? Fredericmckeyso (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who published the review matters. As an analogy, think of a movie review done by the NY Times vs. a review done by [1]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, I did some research and found out that for example smashingmagazine.com has around 200,000 visitors a day, uxbooth.com around 30,000 a day, Mozblog around 80-90,000, tripiwiremagazine.com around 40,000 visitors a day. So how come they are not realiable or valuable sources with such a high traffic volume?Fredericmckeyso (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even popular blogs are not reliable sources -- and that is because their content is not under editorial control, they don't employ fact-checkers, etc. The blogs listed here do indeed inform opinion in this area, but opinion and propduct fandom do not provide reliability. It also appears that this may be Fredericmckeyso's first article. If that is the case, then - Welcome! and it might be best to spend some time editing articles before plunging into creating articles. Note that articles for companies and products come under particular scrutiny because of the possibility that they are being used for promotional purposes. LaMona (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2014 (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.