Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySammy

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 SPEEDY DELETE via G5. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MySammy[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH--does not have significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources 1 and 4 are decent outlets but these are interviews that only briefly mention the subject of the article. Source 2 appears to be an autobiographical blog. Source 3 is a memoir in interview form. Source 5 is a press release. Source 6 refers to the subject tying for third place (with two other products) for a minor award. Google News search turns up zero additional coverage for subject of article. To put things in perspective, Google Play indicates that the Android app has only been downloaded 100-500 times and has not been updated in more than a year. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just to start with, I'll declare that I have a COI in this case, so please bear that in mind - apologies for not flagging this when creating the article, I have only since discovered the assorted Wiki recommendations for dealing with a COI. In response to the above, I'd firstly dispute that the AOL interview only briefly mentions the subject - while the subject is only mentioned by name twice, the interview is an in-depth discussion of the software, in terms of its functionality, alternatives, and place in the marketplace. That seems sufficiently in-depth to me. I'm also confused by the claim that source 2 is an autobiographical blog - it isn't obviously written by an employee of the company (note: it's by Edward Yang, not Kwang, which may be a source of confusion), and isn't first-person. Another source has recently been added, from entrepreneur.com, in which MySammy is one of 3 pieces of software discussed in some depth. There's also some coverage from the LA Business Journal (http://labusinessjournal.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2013/mar/18/app-lets-bosses-keep-close-eye-telecommuters/), and a Chinese language paper (http://www.worldjournal.com/view/full_news/22112034/article-%E4%BB%A5%E9%A1%8F%E8%89%B2%E3%80%81%E5%9C%96%E8%A1%A8%E8%80%83%E6%A0%B8%E5%9C%A8%E5%AE%B6%E4%B8%8A%E7%8F%AD%E8%A1%A8%E7%8F%BE-%E9%84%BA%E5%90%9B%E6%87%8B%E3%80%8C%E5%98%B8%E8%9D%A6%E7%B1%B3%E3%80%8D%E8%BB%9F%E9%AB%94-%E8%86%BA%E6%9C%80%E4%BD%B3%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81%E7%8D%8E) - I didn't originally include these because one is behind a paywall, and the other is not in English, but they must presumably go some way to establishing notability, even if they would not necessarily be optimal sources for specific facts in the article. It seems to me then that there are several in-depth & independent sources for the article, enough to establish notability. With regards to the comment about the app's download figures, please also bear in mind that this is primarily software for Windows, with apps being secondary, so this is not necessarily a good indicator of popularity/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dompreston (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think the Keep vote from the person who was paid to write this article is worth much. With regard to the AOL article, again, it only briefly mentions MySammy. It's mainly an interview about software monitoring in general, and not the subject of the article, which only gets a passing mention. With regard to the blog on hr.com, it's clearly a blog. It relies very heavily on direct quotes from the founder of MySammy, Mr Kwang. Whether that counts as a biography or an autobiography, I don't know. The point is that this too is not a reliable third-party source to establish notability of the subject of the article. It is a promotional interview with a guy who is saying he is great. As for the entrepreneur.com source, I strongly disagree that it is of "some depth." That section is less than 200 words, and about half of that is details like pricing info and which version of Windows it will run on. This is the essential problem, that paid PRs will just say anything. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope that the arguments that I contribute to this discussion count more than the COI that I've already disclosed - if I'm right about the page meeting the requirements, then it shouldn't matter whether I have a COI or not. As I have already said, I think it's clear that the AOL piece is about MySammy and the market that it's in - it's only by divorcing the piece of any context at all that it could seem to be not about the software, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The HR.com piece is a blog, I haven't disputed that - last I checked being a blog isn't a disqualifier. Again, agree to disagree. And as for entrepreneur.com, the coverage may be short, but here's what the Wiki notability guidelines say about significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Not sure how this source doesn't meet that. The subject is address directly, in detail (yes, including the details about pricing and compatibility - relevant details for a software product), with more than a trivial mention. You also haven't mentioned the two new sources I mentioned earlier, both of which focus on MySammy and are from newspapers - significant and independent coverage there. Dompreston (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hang on, so there are actually two editors with a COI here - the editor above and the other editor who has contributed significantly to the article who declares his COI here? And one of the articles being relied on for the purposes of notability was written by that other editor - the company's PR agent? As for blogs, see WP:BLOGS and with regard to the interviews, see WP:PRIMARY into which category those clearly fall. The simple fact is that the product doesn't inherit notability from its creator anyway. Two of the sources are from the same author and are considered one source for the purpose of notability but are those primary source interviews anyway. Another is clearly a press release from the company itself. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the company itself per WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm not seeing that at this stage. Stalwart111 09:08, 23 July 2013 (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.