Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetion


 * 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.

Fetion
The result was Withdrawn. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This software seems to be non-notable. Links in the article are nowhere close to establishing notability, and all that I could find on the web is some news wire with trivial coverage – mostly announcements of plans by China Mobile with no in-depth discussion of the software itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Reply Some in-depth coverage of its market share:--180.155.72.174 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage of its market share belongs to China Mobile article – this one is about piece of software, and unless some in-depth coverage of software (as opposed to market wire) is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm confused with your words. The decline of Fetion's market share is closely related to the poor performance of the software, as discussed in these sources. For exapmle:"凭借其PC与手机互通，短信与消息的无缝互转功能，并依托中移动庞大的网内基数，飞信发展迅速，至2011年中期飞信活跃用户数接近8270万. 在国内IM软件市场，飞信曾跻身前三名. ""而在增强用户粘性、引异网手机用户的竞争中，飞信作为中移动的战略产品也发挥了重要作用，但拥有了庞大的用户群，却没拥有良好的口碑，这为日后飞信的衰败埋下了伏笔. ""即便在飞信发展迅速时，在很多业内专家看来，飞信作为一款互联网产品并不成功，移动互联网专家王煜全曾表示，飞信就是一个免费发短信的工具，除此之外，还有什么作用. ""飞信的衰败与产品本身的问题有关，快速成长之后，飞信又瞄准QQ，希望能在商业收入方面开疆扩土，于是纷繁芜杂的功能被加入，越来越多按钮仅为收费而存在. ""飞信基础功能则停滞不前甚至后退，PC端越来越臃肿，手机端飞信的不稳定和消息的延迟有目共睹. "(taken from the first source) I wonder whether you've read the provided sources in detail, or maybe I have to know what's the expected "discussion of the software itself".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Market share does not speak of particular features, user interface, development history of this software, or at least anything that would allow to distinguish it from other instant messengers. See this for example of coverage that would count for WP:GNG purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If all that required is "particular features, user interface, development history of this software", I can provide more sources. In my point of view, the reception of the software, which is usually shown by its market analyse, is more important than its function, just as a book review weighs much more than a plot summary.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, these seem to be OK. Still, I am not sure whether the topic may be considered notable if it was not found worth mention in any English sources at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English per GNG.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG is ambiguous on this topic, actually: non-English sources can contribute to establishing notability, but it does not state that non-English sources alone can be sufficient. At the same time, coverage limited to particular language indicates lack of notability outside the country where this language is used. I don't think that "notable in country XYZ", even if XYZ is large and important country as China, is equal to "notable". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Attention by serveral national sources is enough. See WP:AUD--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products. If we were discussing China Mobile, I would happily accept this argument, because Chinese telecom company is naturaly limited to the country and national sources are OK. Instant messaging applications are international by their nature, so national sources are not enough for this kind of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes notability threshold with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. There is no requirement that references are in English, and the argument that because it is only of national interest is fallacious. There are many Western topics that have no coverage in Chinese sources but that does not make them non-notable. Philg88 ♦talk 07:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point: unlike most products communication software is inherently international. Notable Chinese brick and mortar business will definitely be worth mention if several Chinese only nation-wide sources will cover it, but the lack of coverage of instant messaging software that is by its nature supposed to be used worldwide means that this software in not notable outside the area of coverage. At least to date this worked as a rule worked for Russian IM software: mail.ru Agent was deleted for the very same reason and Yandex.Messenger was never created. I don't really get why any bias towards China must be in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think I have. There are multiple national sources with in-depth coverage of the topic. As far as the Chinese IM landscape is concerned, the idea of a global messaging service is anathema to the powers that be. Since China Mobile is owned by the government, it is in their interest to restrict the service to China so you won't see any outside coverage due to non-availability. See WeChat for an example of Chinese censorship of IM products. Philg88 ♦talk 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, this makes Chinese government-controlled IM products inherently non-notable, though it is worth explanation in instant messaging. FWIW these days nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services (mail, IM, storage/backup, news reader, etc), and I don't see how Wikipedia benehits from having numerous articles on nearly identical entities with no chance of more or less comprehensive individual coverage even in abstract distinct future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services but few of them gain in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The history and feature of these services differ from each other, thus they can be described in different ways.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Communication software is not inherently international, since they can be limited by ISP or the government, just as other products can be limited by the company which manufacture them. Take fetion as a example: It can work only through China Mobile's network. If government-controlled IM products is inherently non-notable, can we regard all the companies or products in North Korea as inherently non-notable? Indeed WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products in the same way. IM product is not something special. WP:AUD says "at least one regional source is necessary. If a product has received sufficient coverage in multiple national sources, it's clearly notable. It's the sufficient (non-trival) coverage that makes one topic distinguishes from another. --180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, later today I will expand the article with the sources you've provided. I would kindly ask you to provide more reliable sources to make sure I could describe it as thoroughly as possible. And then we'll se whether this description would allow to distinguish it from off-the-mill instant messanger. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I see no indication that you understand Chinese, so I'm not quite sure how you intend to address the referencing. The sources don't need to be cited in the article, they just need to exist. And they do. Philg88 ♦talk 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have automatic translation that gives a grasp on content. Sources somewhere out there don't really improve articles' quality, and this particular article contains absolutely no encyclopedic content for all 6 (six!!!) years of its existance. Now that the service itself is on steady decline even after second attempt at its revival, these sources in the wild don't promise better coverage at some later date any more, so either someone has to fill this article with actual content or it will remain useless clutter forever. And it is obvious from this discussion that I am the only person here who is concerned about its content – despite your !votes to keep it, neither You nor IP did even try actually getting the article to the state when there is at least something worth keeping at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is afd, a place to decide whether an article should be removed from wikipedia instead of how an article can be improved. As an active user on zhwiki, I don't have enough time to expand the article at present. Maybe I will improve the corresponding article on zhwiki later.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ There is no deadline by when a Wikipedia article must be complete (or be "filled with content" to use your expression). Notability is not transient, once it has been established it remains pretty much immutable. If I get some time tomorrow I will do some work with the Chinese sources and add appropriate references. In the meantime, I'd really rather you didn't try anything with machine translation. In my experience, it just causes more problems, which then require fixing. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Expanded with three references from reliable sources. 请检查变化,谢谢.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is basically business wire, information that does not consititute the coverage of the software itself. If these sources basically boil down to information like this, they don't contribute to notability of this product at all. That is: this articles clearly fails WP:PRODUCT and is to be merged with China Mobile. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an IM platform just like WeChat or Tencent QQ and there is coverage of the product in multiple sources sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia requirements. The sources cited are not "business wires" - China doesn't have such things. A Google search in Chinese for the exact product name returns over 31 million hits.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS? Really, the sources about "China Mobile" efforts around its products and services are sources about company, not services. If there are independent reliable sources discussing this software in depth, please, demonstrate them. I am entitled to ask for demonstration by including material in the article, because Chinese-only sources are unaccessible for most Wikipedia editors and can't be verified otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to accept the Chinese sources in good faith as they are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. As for the Google hits, they give an indication that this is a widely covered topic – the product's Chinese name is very specific and doesn't refer to anything else. Coverage of the IM offering from the world's largest mobile operator, even though it is a "foreign" topic is also important from a CSB perspective. Philg88 ♦talk 08:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I could accept Chinese-only sources as this subject seems to be naturally limited to China. But I can't accept foreign language sources with no indication of demonstrating notability of subject, particularily after several such sources, which were used for supporting keep !votes, turned out not supporting notability of the subject. Please, provide independent secondary reliable sources that would discuss the subject of the article – software – in depth, preferably by demonstrating their coverage via inclusion of the sourced material in the article. Right now, following your edits to the article, I have to assume that you are mistaken (in good faith) about availability of sources supporting subject's notability, and the amount of discussion without any good sources provided makes the good faith assumption vaporize rather quickly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 08:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Commment Are these any help? 1, 2, 3, 4. JTdale   Talk 13:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Note If your looking for some form of notability because of the software being original or doing someone other software does not, then you should probably delete most software articles on Wikipedia. The notability of this is from massive numbers of users, not features. Also, I notice Google Hangouts has an article. How exactly is that different to this having an article? Both are nothing more than one of the many many proprietary messengers half of the Internets major companies have, since that seems to the argument against this having an article.  JTdale   Talk 13:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * TL;DR version: no, I don't request any claim of novelty. All I ask is sources describing software aspects of Fetion.
 * See, the article about software may and sometimes even should contain information about development history, marketing compains, development contracts and other business affairs revolving around the software in question. All of this is compulsory information with some relevance to the subject – the piece of software.
 * Still, to show notability of software one should demonstrate that this software recieved significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. That means that there should be sources that actually describe the software properties of the subject: user interface, features (even if these features are ordinary, typical for genre), compatibility, underlying protocols, etc. Without this discussion the real subject of the coverage is not software, but its author.
 * The sources you provide, as well as the sources provided by IP and Philg88 lack such information. These sources cover China Mobile, its marketing efforts and strategies, its struggle against competitors, profitability of its assets, etc. – topics that fall under "business" category, not under "software". These sources could be plausibly used to extand China Mobile, or a "Marketing" section of Fetion article, but they don't really demonstrate that the publishers of these sources consider Fetion as software that is worth non-trivial mention.
 * — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If this was a normal type of software - a game, an anti-virus; then I might agree with you. When it comes to a social media software though, the user numbers are really all that counts. You don't see people writing reviews of the softeware specs of Kik, Snapchat or Facebook. JTdale   Talk 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many, many, many sources discussing features, UI, usability and other ergonomic aspects of Facebook. Actually, enough material for separate articles on every historical UI widget there, as well as on many aspects of their technical infrastructure.
 * Also note, the Fetion is not a social network, it is an instant messenger like Skype: Desktop software, not even an online service per se. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's most like Kik actually. Kik Messenger JTdale   Talk 04:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, like Kik. You imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not invoking any policies. You compared it to Skype, which it has very little relation to, so I corrected you. JTdale   Talk 12:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, may be you could point me to some text in WP:GNG or WP:NORG that says that something is notable if it has many users? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to something in WP:GNG or WP:NORG that defines which part of a topic it must cover to count as significant coverage? I don't see anywhere that makes coverage of sales, success, business strategy, and so any less valid than articles explaining software features? JTdale   Talk 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Continued In English alone, for a Chinese product, I can pull up articles from ZDnet, Global Times, Asia Times, China Daily, The Next Web, Xinhua News Agency and South China Morning Post. How many articles do you need to prove this is notable? JTdale   Talk 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly two (in English or different languages per WP:AUD), which would satisfy WP:PRODUCT: discuss this software as opposed to China Mobile's marketing attempts, contracts and usage stats. Could you please link the sources instead of their publishers? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:PRODUCT says anything about what needs to be covered. Why can you not work that out? WP:PRODUCT is discussing products in the context of on the main page. WP:Software notability failed, so there is no specific guideline that says anything more than WP:GNG and that states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that 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." Do you read anywhere in here that it says it must include software features description? Plainly multiple articles on the software, including one that shows it has more users than many countries have people, makes it notable. Oh and WP:NOENG is the correct policy, not WP:AUD by the way. JTdale   Talk
 * WP:PRODUCT says: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This situation describes China Mobile and Fetion, but China Mobile is not too long. Next, WP:PRODUCT states: Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." This is the exact description of situation with Fetion, because it is not covered in reliable sources unlike information about China Mobile's marketing efforts and product placement. You are right, there is no guideline saying that sources for articles about software should actually cover software. Usage numbers are a good point to note, but they don't really say anything about the software: regardless numerous noted usage statistics, this article does not provide encyclopedic coverage of application whatsoever; it does not even provide a way to distinguish this application from any other software in its genre. Now, can you provide sources describing Fetion as software, and not as a generic product of China Mobile with number of users and outsourcing contracts? The answer to this question is actually the answer to the question "Can Fetion be presumed to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP?" — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I get what your saying but it is immediately notable under WP:GNG as soon as it has significant coverage. Half a dozen articles in major news outlets is significant coverage. Yes it is not optimum that in English there is no discussion of features but a) I'm quite sure our editors who understand Chinese can provide that and b)WP:GNG still does not require that. Under your interpretation, it is similar to saying there was a billionaire who has significant coverage because of his wealth but is reclusive and so no one covers his personal life, then he wouldn't qualify for WP:GNG which is a interpretation based in nothingness. "a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy" - still talking about products on the corporation page. This doesn't even touch account when products are themselves notable. "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product". This article is already half way to not being a stub, and could easily be expanded from being one. JTdale   Talk 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be immediately notable under WP:GNG as soon as it would have significant coverage. Coverage of related topic with trivial mention of subject is just not significant coverage. Apparently the discussion about Chinese sources above resolved into warning against my attempt to add material from Chinese sources using automatic translation and these edits: 1, 2 and 3. This also does not help with notability, because it covers China Mobile's contracts and business issues, and agian not software. Provided the length of this discussion and my explicit request to add the sources to the article I take this situation for the proof of the fact that two Chinese-speaking editors participating in this discussion could not find sources to support the notability claim. Now, this article is still as much a stub as it was in 2009: it contains zero material about the subject outside infobox, and I see no reason to believe this situation would change, so WP:PRODUCT still requires it to be merged (problematic from WP:DUE standpoint – the article is full of trivia and lacks material worth merging) or deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW if SD Times (or any other tech magazine with strong tradition of publishing nonsense) happens to write an article of Fetion, stating that it supports Skype protocol and allows moving physical objects with voice commands, there won't be sources to back the statement that this is fringe view. Really, the there can't be article about a product that was never reviewed by reliable sources in meaningful way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Coverage of related topic with trivial mention of subject" < How in the world is this trivial mention of subject? The article focuses on it. Your issue is that it doesn't focus on software and of course there isn't going to be reviews by western outlets - they don't have access to the product since it only operates in China. However, that makes it no less notable because it has other areas (i.e.: It's massive user base) that have been covered. JTdale   Talk 11:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is exactly trivial mention. The article is about China Mobile's competition efforts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I agree with our chinese speaking editors. I just tried to auto-translate some of the articles linked here and it just spits out gibberish; you can't base your claims about those references on the rubbish google translate gives you. JTdale   Talk 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See, I specifically asked "our chinese speaking editors" to extend the article with sources about this software, and all I've got was business wire. I have no reason to believe that any article there is actually about this software and provides significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Articles stating that China Mobile revamps Fetion to compete with WeChat, be there million of them, are still of no use per WP:GNG, as their coverage of Fetion is not significant at any rate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * keep lots of regular coverage which takes some wading through but includes in-depth coverage that supports notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:44, 20 July 2014 (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.