- Coco (application) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The aforementioned is a startup company that currently has no desire to heavily publicize in order to retain competitive advantage in the current market. However, said company's product is verifiable via the App Store and Google Play. In this particular situation, would the App Store and Google Play be considered reputable third-party sources to legitimize relevancy for this Wikipedia page? Several third-party online citable sources reviewing the product were presented additionally. The main purpose and urgency for a Wikipedia entry is not to promote, but to allow the general public to organically discover and learn about Coco through relevant searches for whatever means they may be pursuing.
Wikipedia presents itself as an easily accessible location wealthy with information about an assortment of topics, both popular and yet to be discovered. It's no doubt that it's likely the world's most popular resource that people go to to find information on anything and everything. As mentioned before, the goal of this entry is to merely inform and be discoverable by anyone interested in the relative topic. Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs)
- From User talk:Joe Decker:
Extended content
|
|
Hi Joe,
I was wondering if it would be possible to discuss what steps need to be taken to reinstate the Coco (application) article and what can be done to prevent the prevent the Instanza (company) page from receiving a similar fate. It is currently marked as "being considered for deletion". Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Roughly speaking, you would need to show multiple additional reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in detail. Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, despite the silly name, does a fairly good job at summarizing the requirements, and is a bit more accessible than the underlying policies of WP:GNG and WP:RS. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response and additional resources, Joe. The situation is a little difficult because this is a startup company that currently does not want to publicize. Is there any way possible to simply have an 'About Us' section published on Wikipedia? I can assure you that there is no intention for self promotion. Also, evidence can be provided that supports that this is a fully functioning live product on iOS and Android. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, no, at least not at present. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, advertising venue or web host. It is our mission to create our encyclopedia based on fully independent, reputable, third-party sources, and that will exclude a variety of subjects that are not famous enough to have received the sort of sourcing that is required to meet our guidelines. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with your intentions, though, we do a terrible job at communicating to people what our policies and so forth are, and you've been extremely forthright, for which I am very grateful. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I can provide third-party [reputable] references, would you be able to reinstate the page(s) so that I can edit the original article to include these new resources? Thanks again for your help and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If they meet the relevant criteria, sure, but given that a few editors have looked, that task may be difficult. Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH#Primary_criteria (the first few paragraphs from where that loads) is probably worth reading to get some additional idea of what we're looking for. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can I go about submitting the links for your approval? Or, do they need your approval? Should I include them within this conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I've located several third-party sites that have done reviews on the product. I would like to request the ability to edit the entry so that it can be relevant and also adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.86.14 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi -- if you have a couple links (or descriptions of the off-line sources), I'll be happy to look at them here and make a call. If you disagree with my call at that point, I'd be happy to point you at the group where you could appeal my decision. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at these:
http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/real-time-photo-text-voice-sharing-app-coco-voice-comes-to-android/
http://www.maketecheasier.com/coco-voice-messaging-for-ios-and-android/
http://www.androidstatic.com/coco-voice-is-a-social-walkie-talkie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, our policies (see WP:UGC are a bit strict with respect to sources, and most of those are going to be seen more as "group blogs" than as newsblogs with respect to the policy, particularly maketecheasier (which makes it pretty clear just how easy it would be to create one's own writeup there.) This doesn't rule out all on-line-only sources, but it does take out most of them. Anything else from a print publication? If you think I've erred above, your next step would be to appeal this at deletion review. If you'd like to get other editors feedback on whether those sources are considered to meet our WP:RS policy or not, a good place to do that is our reliable sources noticeboard. And again, I'm sorry this probably feels like a maze of bureaucracy... sorry 'bout that. Have a great day! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Ping @Joe Decker: because, though it was discussed on his talk page, he seems not to have been notified about this discussion specifically. Stalwart111 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the notification. I'm more than happy to let this process take its course. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse "would the App Store and Google Play be considered reputable third-party sources" - No, they are not independent sources, they don't claim to do significant fact checking etc.
but to allow the general public to organically discover and learn about Coco through relevant searches for whatever means they may be pursuing." - got to love marketing speak for promote, dressing it up in lots of words doesn't make the intent any different. Regardless if people can't already "discover and learn..." without wikipedia, it's pretty much an admission that the world at large hasn't taken note i.e. it fails notability.
"Wikipedia presents... ...and yet to be discovered." - no wikipedia presents itself as a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, by definition that is a tertiary sourceso absolutely not stuff "yet to be discovered" see stuff like "No original research" and what wikipedia is not.
Sorry but the nomination here appears to me to fundamentally misunderstand what wikipedia is about, and seems to be trying to dress a a pig (promotion) in a skirt (it's merely to inform) and call it a supermodel. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The decision at the AfD was correct; no other result would have been possible. Regardless of promotionalism , it just plain is not yet notable. What will be needed is product reviews providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. When you get them, try again--and I would suggest using the WP:AFC process, which is the recommended route when there is conflict of interest, such as writing an article about one's own company or project. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse outcome of discussion and sources make deletion the only real option. I'd likely have !voted "weak keep" on the basis of the sources, but it's by no means clear cut enough to override the AfD's discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no significant new notability with which to overturn the AFD, and for what it's worth the nom is incorrect that Wikipedia is for things "yet to be discovered". Wikipedia's scope is encyclopedic topics already verifiable by significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
