Talk:Blob Tree

Appears to be spam
This appears to be spam. The majority of references are from inappropriate sources, including apparent spam sites and first-party promotional sources. The news references only seem to mention the notion of the Blob Tree peripherally; the bachelor's thesis is perhaps the best source on this, but it by no means qualifies an article for notability on Wikipedia. Anyone can write a bachelor's thesis. I would nominate this for deletion soon unless someone can provide at least some better sources. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you confirm what sources you deem to be spam sites? Just because the majority of sources are news articles this doesn’t deem the item spam. There are many other sources that one could pull from. Wikijohnword (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources on Wikipedia need to be third-party, independent and reliable. On the citations, [1] is from a medium blog, which is not reliable. [2] is from the website of the subject itself. [3] appears to be from an Indonesian social media website, which is not reliable. I am not sure what [4] is. [5] appears to be from a Hong Kong online news site, which I think could be considered a good source. [6] appears to be from another tabloid. [7] appears to be from a spam blog. [8] appears to be from a social media blog. [9] is the subject's creator's website. [10] is a small English newspaper describing what went on at a local school.
 * Sources' coverage of a subject must be substantial in nature and not passing. I don't see how any of these sources indicate the notability of the subject of this article other than the fact that there is some discussion on it. For this article to stand on its own, I believe that there needs to be more sources that show, for example, the spread of the usage of this Blob Tree tool, its impact and so on. What I'm seeing now is a collection of poor sources that discuss the subject in passing detail and evince no significance of the subject other than it exists. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dawkin Verbier, it doesn't sound like you've looked for better sources. That's fine, you have no obligation to do so but it is something that needs to be done WP:BEFORE anyone makes a move to delete an article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)