Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBuddy


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

EBuddy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article covers two topics: the ordinary web-based instant messaging application and the company behind it. Neither of them satisfies the notability guidelines (WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG). Most of the sources are primary, while the rest of them balance on the edge of reliability and trivial notice, or at least lack the depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's plenty of coverage and achievements in the article and online that establish eBuddy's specific notability imo. ~dee  ( talk? ) 08:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And more precisely, what are these coverage and achievements? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The application itself has become popularly used, similar to Google Talk: Cnet, MSNBC, Red Herrings Top 100 Europe 2007, Google Zeitgeist 2007, Crunchies 2008 Awards for Best International Startup, Techcrunch -- (and based on that article, "In total, eBuddy’s mobile applications have been downloaded over 75 million times, and more than 15 million unique mobile users access eBuddy every month, sending over 7.5 billion messages." -- this isn't notable?), Business Insider, Buddy Debuts Realtime, Cross-Platform Messaging App (TechCrunch), WP Central, Talk Android...and there are more. Just take a look at the results of searching on TechCrunch and those provided by the editor Colapeninsula below. ~dee  ( talk? ) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bogus rationale, bogus sources:
 * the whole mention is "Germans will get eBuddy" — trivial mention.
 * the whole mention is "Instant messaging apps like Google Talk or eBuddy also fit the bill but gulp battery like there’s no tomorrow and require your friends to also be logged in for you to talk to them" — trivial mention.
 * Unless getting to Red Herrings' Top 100 Europe 2007 makes it notable on its own, this list doesn't help at all.
 * This shows that eBuddy was more frequently searched on Google in 2007 then in 2006. Eg. from 1 hit per year it rose to 10 hits per year. Doesn't prove existence of the app.
 * The word "startup" means that the topic is company, while the article is about software — unrelated to the subject.
 * Downloaded over 1 million times. Unlike two previous references this one proves the existence of the software, nothing more.
 * Raising money is financial thing about company — unrelated to the subject.
 * "I believe it definitely has some potential" — the author didn't even see the software. Fails to prove existence.
 * The two paragraph note that this software was released. Lacks depth.
 * The same as previous with one paragraph and two screenshots added. Again lacks depth.
 * The combination of all the above.
 * Neither of references warrant an article neither per WP:PRODUCT, nor even WP:GNG. Even if they would, this software is still WP:MILL case and no sources allow to write more then a stub on topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I found 2 substantial reviews in reliable sources: PC World review, Macworld review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These are better. The first one lacks depth as the software failed to function properly, second even implies WP:MILL. Anyway, these sites offer download of this software, so they are not independent and thus don't help even with WP:GNG. Even if they would, WP:PRODUCT isn't met. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The PC World review article doesn't appear to offer a download of EBuddy applications, nor in it's subpages. It just has a link to the vendor's website. This is an independent source. Also, the article is about the company, so WP:PRODUCT doesn't particularly apply regarding this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If this article is indeed about company (which I doubt as only infobox and lead contain company-related info), then per WP:PRODUCT the notability of this company can't be inherited from its products, and only two of the references are at least somehow relevant, though they clearly fail to demonstrate the significant impact on humanity as required by WP:NCORP, so this article's deletion is the only possible policy-based outcome. To avoid tl;dr issue I explained my thoughts on topic in more detail in my essay WP:NBIZ. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. See my comments below:
 * the whole mention is "Germans will get eBuddy" — trivial mention. - Uh, my point was that it is being popularly used.
 * the whole mention is "Instant messaging apps like Google Talk or eBuddy also fit the bill but gulp battery like there’s no tomorrow and require your friends to also be logged in for you to talk to them" — trivial mention. - see above.
 * Unless getting to Red Herrings' Top 100 Europe 2007 makes it notable on its own, this list doesn't help at all. - Sorry, but it's an award given to eBuddy for being one of "100 companies that are leading the next wave of innovation." That means something.
 * This shows that eBuddy was more frequently searched on Google in 2007 then in 2006. Eg. from 1 hit per year it rose to 10 hits per year. Doesn't prove existence of the app. - No, this is a list of the top 10 "Fastest Rising" keywords that were searched in 2007. iPhone was #1, Facebook was #3, YouTube was #6 and eBuddy was #7. That's significant.
 * The word "startup" means that the topic is company, while the article is about software — unrelated to the subject. - Lol. No, the topic is "eBuddy" -- who won the award? eBuddy did. eBuddy is the company and software. Why did it win best startup? Because the software is gaining popularity.
 * Downloaded over 1 million times. Unlike two previous references this one proves the existence of the software, nothing more. - Excuse me? The article states "eBuddy’s mobile applications have been downloaded 75 million times, and more than 15 million unique mobile users access eBuddy every month, sending over 7.5 billion messages." That's a lot more than "over 1 million times" and proves a lot more than the app's "existence".
 * Raising money is financial thing about company — unrelated to the subject. - The article mentions how eBuddy "reached 100 million mobile downloads".
 * "I believe it definitely has some potential" — the author didn't even see the software. Fails to prove existence. - Did you even read the article??? It's talking about a new version of eBuddy called eBuddy XMS and the author was saying that he got to try the beta version, which he thinks has potential -- the final version was only released in The Netherlands and Australia at the point of writing the article, pending 'worldwide' release.
 * The two paragraph note that this software was released. Lacks depth. - I was trying to prove existence to you. ;-)
 * The same as previous with one paragraph and two screenshots added. Again lacks depth. - Same as above.
 * The combination of all the above. - Strongly disputed.
 * All in all, I don't think you paid the sources that much attention and should dig a little deeper on the app/company's popularity--especially go through #11. ~dee  ( talk? ) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I paid much more attention then I should have paid – this software doesn't differ enough from the rest of the similar apps. Some of the references prove existence, others don't do even that. Given that every mobile app has similar coverage, I don't see a reason to keep this article, and yet you provided no single source that could be used to satisfy WP:GNG demand. The notability of company is out of question here per WP:PRODUCT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Given that every mobile app has similar coverage" -- that's a very bold statement to make, and one that is hardly true. I believe that eBuddy does satisfy WP:GNG and have argued my case above. It's up to other editors to decide now. ~dee  ( talk? ) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an extremely popular application on several platforms, and there are more than an enough sources to establish general notability. All the arguing about what's in the sources or how they are applied is itself evidence there is sufficient material to verify facts about the subject, and the rest is just cleanup required. Steven Walling &bull; talk   00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is not enough verifiable material for a single sentence. Unlike news blog we have articles on generic topic, so our articles for pieces of software should only include detail that makes the specific subject different from its parent, and there is nearly no such detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRODUCT (the company does not inherit notability but its info should be retained in the product article). eBuddy XMS-SMS Rolls Out iMessage-Like Feature, Targets Indonesia and India Telcos First looks like significant coverage to me. Additional refs:. -- Trevj (talk) 10:21, 10 April 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.