Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldsboro Web Development


 * 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 delete. The keep arguments by the unregistered users or by Lewells2000 do not give evidence that the article meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. The deletes however demonstrate it does not meet the notability guidelines do to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Goldsboro Web Development

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to fail WP:GNG - the only references are business registration information entries, and the business' Softpedia site. The business does not appear to be associated with any events that are encyclopedia-worthy. Helenabella  (Talk)  05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: A local firm going about its business, but no evidence that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The company has provided scholarly and scientific research to prove noteriety and has provided more than one secondary source as evidence. According to Wikipedia Policy this company should Keep Leewells2000 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this company is notable. SwisterTwister   talk  17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The 2 seconds to click the "Scholar" link as provided by this nomination template proves you wrong. How can you say that there are no searches indicating anything notable when the Wikipedia template hand-delivered it for you? Leewells2000 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read and get wise. They are not going to make any attempt to find merit; and will act completely blind to merits you present because their vote and this nomination is a canvased conflict of interest. And bad faith? The mere fact that not a single voter has even recognized accredited scientific research presented and the presenter has not moved for a speedy keep, solidifies the claim as there is no justifiable reason inside Wikipedia policy that the page should be removed. It certainly merits a stub tag, but not delete.2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but there's not much like news coverage covering this company. SwisterTwister   talk  22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Company has published software to both Softpedia and WordPress.org more than was included in the wiki page, also references from government websites. Goldsboro Web Development cites Softpedia which in turn cites Wordpress.org which is verifiable sources that this company has created unique software which qualifies the company for inclusion under the condition of its software being encyclopedic material . It is more appropriate to flag this as a stub instead of deletion.  Out of curisoty to why this was flagged for deletion and not a stub I checked out the innitiator's user profile and found he/she is a web/graphic designer him/herself and focuses contributions on deletion of web designers.  This officially classifies as WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT and should lead to a speedy keep. Company escapes WP:INHERITORG from resources:  WOT, Wordpress.org/plugins , Angie's List , Better Business Bureau , and Softpedia .  Company meets Notability from having 200,000+ websites using their software . It is also noteworthy that other delete votes are of web designers and developers.  This is indeed a WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk)
 * Please assume good faith and do not make unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations against other participants in this discussion. AllyD (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you AllyD. In relation to this deletion discussion, I am becoming somewhat uncomfortable with comments from the author on my user talk page, but am unsure what to do about them.  I hope that they will bring their comments to this discussion so they can be properly considered.  Helenabella   (Talk)  06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments to you on your user page address your opinion of Wikipedia policy in that you believe that 6+ secondary sources are required to prove both notoriety and reliability. The comments were also very civil and polite. I'm not sure why you would begin to claim that you would be uncomfortable unless you know you are opposing Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia specifically states "more than one" secondary source. I have provided 8 (see the page again).  There is no logical reason why a user would harbor an opinion in opposition to Wikipedia when the policies are so clear.Leewells2000 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Special pleading fallacy. See your own comments having assuming bad faith even in the comment you posted on my user page. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In clarification, I nominated the article for deletion. However, I am neither a graphic designer or web designer (economist, actually), and the majority of my contributions are on vandalism patrol, not on design-related articles.  As such, I do not believe any commercial conflict of interest exists.  I imagine the above commentator has confused me with another editor.  Helenabella   (Talk)  06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never mentioned or fingered you personally as being a web designer, though there are 3 commentators here that are. As so their previous revisions would suggest. You do however have quite a few deletion contribs to web designers and developer companies, all of which that I can see where kept Leewells2000 (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Your profile history seems to suggest you are a graphic designer and your hobby is photography. At what point did you become an economist? I've read all the comments here, and sure, while I came across abrasively, the point was clear that you assumed the worst about the page when you made your decision to nominate it.  Then as User:leewells2000 stated, you then ask for special pleading in asking people not to have bad faith in you. User:leewells2000 has more than risen to the challenge of vindicating his company and provided multiple verifiable and even accredited sources for his claims that his product is the best.  If having a product that is the best is not a qualification for Wikipedia, then I'm officially withdrawing my funding as it would certainly indicate that acceptance into Wikipedia is a popularity contest and not a challenge of merits. And that's that. 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I referenced Super Captcha in a citation as proof that it is our software. I have yet to create a page for the notoriety of Super Captcha yet.  It is a rule on Wikipedia to have Good Faith -- not bad faith which is the action of this nomination.  Here is an example of the notoriety of Super Captcha, called the most secure text-based CAPTCHA by research from the  University of Wollongong  It takes 30 seconds to search this on Google. Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability of a firm is not demonstrated by business index listings, nor does notability inherit from use of the firm's product(s). Standard searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not locating detailed discussion of Goldsboro Web Development but I'd be happy to revise my opinion above if some can be found. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not inherited from USE of our firm's product(s), it is inherited from the RESEARCH of our firm's product(s). There is a very stark difference.  Use of product is the popularity fallacy, accredited research is much less fallible.  Again it is you who has bad faith here. You're using the ambiguity fallicy and trying to misrepresent the Wikipedia policy.  The policy doesn't state that company's cannot be listed by merit of their products, it simply states that use of the product doesn't grant you a ticket.  If I show statistics that our product is used on 4 million websites, it wouldn't help.  However accredited and independent research to the merits of the PRODUCT is completely diffrent.  Else how do indie game companies like Keen Software House make it to Wikipedia, exactly?  This meets the criteria for WP:RS under "Scholarship", "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." See https://books.google.com/books?id=Zku5BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=On+the+Security+of+Text-based+3D+CAPTCHAs&source=bl&ots=neDqfohkoU&sig=Ya5Tey99F5k0Ueo6GmT8l14eeSE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpRHVe-LGYalgwTvm4GwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=On%20the%20Security%20of%20Text-based%203D%20CAPTCHAs&f=false http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2363455 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404814000856 and the list keeps going.  Google = your friend.  Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per AllyD.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is up with all of the web designers voting Delete when there is scientific and academic research sourcing this company and their software? Conflict of Interest? Leewells2000 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The author seems to have established verifiable evidence of categoric superiority for his product which is Wikipedia material. Admission to Wikipedia has never been a popularity contest but a measure of merit and it seems the edits to the page has sufficiently satisfied this requirement. 2600:1004:B05F:5512:6BC9:6EED:549D:9744 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:, and  For all being new editors to Wikipedia, seem to be working from the same page, similar interests, writing styles, timing.... Just a quawinkadink I guess.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem I do live close to this company, but there is no coincidence, as I was pursuing the North Carolina companies for a book report. Keep the tin-foil hat on, brother. 2600:1004:B068:AC2D:E878:84C6:3658:800F (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * speedy keep but add sources: this company is in my home city and I have seen them in the news papers a few times. Editor: Google will inundate you with results, but there are scattered non-trivial reviews as well as a couple of scientific papers on this company some have been included in this debate others need to be added Jake 2600:1004:B042:9AC1:2CAE:5790:C4E9:2B87 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Too many socks in this discussion.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be insulting? Did you expect that folks wouldn't click the whois? Or do you believe that for some reason that this is a popularity vote.  This discussion is going on week 2 and there is only one reason it is still open, not because of the amount of keeps or the amount of deletes, but because I have provided verifiable proof that the article reasonably meets the merits defined in Wikipedia policy and not a single person can challenge it.  In fact the only reason it has not closed is because the reporter is too pig-headed to initiate a speedy keep. It seems as if you are defensive that your votes are out-numbered. Allow me to assure you that popularity means nothing.  Until someone can show that the scientific research I have offered is invalid, or the reviews I submitted are "trivial", the page meets all requirements to keep under WP:GNG.  But by all means, stay your course with your capaign against web designers posting on Wikipedia -- that is wp:canvass.Leewells2000 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete 8 sources are cited. 6 of them are about a product and do not factor into the assessment of deletion of this article, which is not about a product. The other two sources do not have this company as their subject.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)