Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardmobili


 * 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 no consensus. In terms of numbers, we have three !votes for deletion and two for keeping the article (note that the nominator changed his stance to Keep). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and Electric Catfish offer good arguments for deletion, arguing that it lacks the coverage needed to satisfy WP:CORP. TheChampionMan1234 made a weak argument, as the two voters whose comments he voted delete per did not articulate a good reason for deletion. Northamerica1000 and Philafrenzy argue that the article should be kept because of the extent of the coverage it has received in the sources that have been found. This is a guideline-based argument and therefore fairly strong. So we have two users who believe the coverage is not significant enough to justify keeping the article, and two users who say the opposite. As the closing admin, it's not my role to pick a side based on my personal definition of which level of coverage is acceptable, so I've closed it as no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cardmobili

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP, WP:MILL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, this topic passes WP:NCORP, specifically the section WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:MILL is an essay about "ordinary" topics, and essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources – Please read WP:NRVE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Undecided: GNews turns up some stuff in Portuguese which may tip the scale on WP:NCORP, but my Portuguese is not good enough to be sure. Someone else will have to look. Also, a local from Portugal may have better sources to add. -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete:per nominator and BenTels ''TheChampionMan1234 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:BenTels comment is as "Undecided." Why delete an article partially upon the basis that another user isn't fluent in Portuguese to a degree of certainty to analyze sources? Importantly, see also WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per the following sources ( others are also available ):
 * "The technology that puts the wallet inside the phone"
 * "Loyalty cards are in the digital world"
 * "Cardmobili and RouletteCricket: great startups, Vodafone Mobile Clicks winners"
 * "Customers are more loyal to brands with cards on your phone"
 * "Portuguese want to do away with plastic loyalty cards"
 * ''The Register article
 * "Ten thousand Portuguese joined the digital copy of voter registration card in the phone"
 * "Cardmobili wins global competition for applications in Barcelona"
 * "Cardmobili represent Portugal in the final contest of Vodafone"
 * There's also this article with mentions: The Register article
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 13:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of these are about service, not the company; the rest just mention the Vodafone's investment and give a brief note about service. Nowhere close to passing WP:CORPDEPTH. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Also, this nomination doesn't qualify why this topic is "not notable." Stating why and how the topic isn't notable would be an improvement, because as worded, it could be interpreted as based upon personal opinion, rather than the sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I change my vote to keep as the extra references seem adequate to demonstrate notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Two-word nominations to remove an article from an encyclopedia can be ambiguous. Perhaps consider being more specific in future nominations. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you have changed your stance regarding your nomination, you may want to consider striking the nomination using . This would clarify your stance regarding the topic. Otherwise, users will likely still think you consider the topic non-notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP: CORP, as it lacks reliable coverage. Electric Catfish 18:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.