Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoweb


 * 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. The first !vote following the nomination essentially only provides a "per nom" rationale, and the second !vote provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, with the user only stating that they "don't see" how the topic is notable, providing no other input. Sources were provided later in the discussion, along with a rationale that the trademark being non-notable is a non-issue relative to the article's content. However, nobody else who contributed earlier came back later to opine about these matters, and no other users came along afterward either, after three relistings. In light of all of this, closing with the caveat of No prejudice against speedy renomination, as this is essentially an incomplete discussion that gained no further input, when such input would have been vital. North America1000 06:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Geoweb

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, despite A865 thinking that it passes GNG in Special:Diff/1079432645. Also, I agree with Brunnock's reason for proposed deletion, which was GEOWEB is a registered trademark which has nothing to do with the subject of this article.. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons that GeoffreyT2000 stated. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is coverage of this in books, and as I mentioned the trademark is for an unrelated product in the construction industry and was filed after this article was created. A865 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this is notable. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of coverage of this term as described in the article. The fact that it is also a non-notable trademark, and that is not addressed in the article, is not a reason for deletion.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources found by SailingInABathTub. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.