Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial


 * 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. There seems to be agreement that the article needs improving, but AFD is not the place for that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Intersection between a technological gadget and a human biological function does not scream notability. Perhaps if this was titled about the intersection of many technologies with breastfeeding this article would have a chance, but to sub-sub-sub specialize in such a odd intersection of subjects suggests that this is not notable outside one trial (of only 5 mothers). I note that the Breastfeeding article has no specific section about technology so this doesn't make sense as a valid spinout from that. When I PRODed the page, the primary author deleted the PROD and personally attacked me for exercising a judgement call regarding the notability of this trial. I also observe that the editor who has been advocating for this article,, is the one who is sponsoring the trial. This raises in my mind significant problems with WP:COI/WP:ADVERT/WP:NOTPROMO. Article had been declined multiple times while still in AFC with significant comments expressing concern about the notability of this trial program. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore hard redirects to  so we have an editor who executed a rename to attempt to bypass the COI restrictions by disguisising their agenda while at the same time maintaining 2 user accounts editing in the same subject area.  as the renaming admin, would it be best to hard block the original name so that this unintentional flub in WP:SOCK rules (assuming good faith) is not repeated? Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment seems to be a mean approach. AfD isn't a place to discuss how to deal with a conflict of interest. Many users have a COI and there's nowhere that suggests they should be automatically blocked. New editors who choose a company name are routinely asked to change it. This author has changed it, so well done on their part for complying.
 * On the question of what to do with the article, well, I was surprised it was moved from AfC in the first place. The trials were widely reported across the globe in mainstream media but there was no consensus anywhere (even amongst the organisers) as to what the trials were called. Usually a permutation of words using "Google Glass" and "Breastfeeding". FWIW my instinct is that the topic meets WP:GNG but the title of the article needs improving/interrogating. NB the Gold Questar Award was made to the "Breastfeeding with Google Glass App" and in my mind the trials were a process of developing this app. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been my understanding that COI (and subsequently the Non-Neutral Point of View) is a valid argument to introduce at AFD as a user who has a COI heavily promoting a article is grounds for carefully combing over it for the above mentioned reasons (COI/Advert/NOTPROMO). If the editor had stayed with the Julie345 account, I'd have never known that they were originally named Smallworldsocial and connected the dots with respect to Conflict of Interest.  But they didn't and actively took the action of registering the old name back after the original rename and then using the old username to edit the article and talk page.  While I'm willing to AGF on this sequence of flubs, I'm asking the admin who did the original rename to hard lock out the old username. Hasteur (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. She's changed back to Smallworldsocial!! I nom'd Madeline Sands for AfD, so am aware of their single purpose here. Sionk (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The account Smallworldsocial appears to have started creating things back in 2010 (Special:Log/Julie345). On May 20th, it appears executed a WP:CHU request (Changing_username/Simple/Archive161) only to have the Smallworldsocial user come back when they logged into enwiki the very next day while signed into the Unified login (Special:CentralAuth/Smallworldsocial). Hasteur (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very common and usually not intentional socking. With cookies and SUL, the old name sometimes gets automatically recreated and the user does not realize their new name is ready. Ask them to stop editing with the old name and use the new name. Softblock the old name if absolutely necessary. No comment on the article or behavioural issues. – xeno talk 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete After closely inspecting the facts put forward by user "Hasteur", It seems his claims are totally legitimate, "its a brilliant catch by user Hasteur". The user account/accounts in concern is a clear WP:SPA, violating Wikipedia norms WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:SOAPBOX to name a few, The strategy of the user account/accounts, seems to be "getting lucky" playing Russian roulette, but not this time. More than enough evidence is provided by user "Hasteur" to prove his point. Science.Warrior (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject meets notability guidelines as there is extensive coverage in RS. Having a COI is not a valid reason for deletion if the content itself is neutral or neutral enough to easily be fixed, which is the case here.  The vast majority of AfCs are submitted by users with COIs - indeed using AfC is the best way for a COI accounts to create an article.  This is considered acceptable behavior.  (They should be instructed not to edit the article now that it is mainspace though, as that is highly discouraged.)  A notable subject is a notable subject, a COI does not change that.  Furthermore, there was no attempt to hide anything by Smallworldsocial/Julie345 - just a necessary user name change mandated by username policy and an unfortunate, probably accidental, use of the old account after the new user name was created.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, you are mistaken on several points. This subject isn't notable.  What about Occulus Rift Breastfeeding app trial, Breastfeeding with Skype, Breastfeeding on webcam?  The entire trial is 5 mothers.  To put it in the context of a real clinical trial, would we have a article about a clinical trial for an antidepressant that only had 5 subjects in the trial?  Second, while the way for a COI user to propose a article that they have personal involvement is through AFC, the moving out from AFC after it had been declined into mainspace indicates either a misundersanding of the COI policy or a willful attempt to conceal the connection between the editor and the subject.  I don't think it's notable and based on the fact that the sources can't agree what to call it indicates that the subject is not yet notable.  Think carefully, because if we allow this, we potentially open the door for a great many initiatives in pilot program status being articles here. Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Many errors in your response:
 * Whether those other subjects are notable or not is completely irrelevant (also, a redlink proves nothing as far as notability)
 * Notability is not determined by importance, but rather RS coverage, so the argument about 5 mothers is irrelevant
 * The article was moved to mainspace by experienced reviewer, not the page's author. After you declined it, Julie345 addressed your concerns and resubmit it.  That is a 100% proper action, a desirable action even, not even remotely a "willful attempt to conceal the connection between the editor and the subject".  I don't know why you insist on pushing the COI angle, but if you must do it at least get the facts straight.  As it is, you are way off base with your accusations.  While I'm sure Smallworldsocial/Julie345 has a conflict of interest, he/she has done nothing that indicates an intent to abuse.
 * The fact that RS don't use a consistent name for the app, indicates it doesn't have a name, not that it is non-notable. We have MANY articles on events and things with no name; indeed, we even have guidelines on how to name such articles.
 * The only relevant question is does this app have enough RS coverage to indicate notability. Based on the 24 sources in the article, at least half of which are both reliable and significant, the answer is yes.  When the app is named then of course this article will be renamed.  It's not like I'm arguing the trial should have its own article once the app is out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename "Breastfeeding with Google Glass app", per my above comments. The article is somewhat promotional and, perhaps, excessive in its detail. However, I'm surprised at the argument that this trial wasn't notable. It was internationally reported in detail in mainstream news outlets. Also on the basis of countering systematic bias on Wikipedia against 'female-interest' subject areas, this app development deserves a place here. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I wasn't particularly enamoured of the quality of the article when I accepted it, WP:AFC provides an environment intended to rip away WP:COI. I viewed it as essentially free of COI. COI accusations start at acceptance, but AfD is not the place to handle COI. I accepted the article on the basis that it met our acceptance criteria. I hoped at least that it would be edited and improved, not just nominated to be torn down. It is good enough to survive, and to be improved. It passes WP:GNG, many of the references are acceptable. Fiddle   Faddle  22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I am astonished by the arguments for keeping... You do realize that this "Trial" is only 5 mothers and ~10 "support staff". Essentially we're talking about a single classroom, and you're arguing for the notability of this? This would be like giving a Wikipedia article to every single university research department because they happened to be very good at getting their name out there. Even though we don't like to say that an individual AfD has no bearing on future ones, opening this can of worms is only going to lead to trouble. Hasteur (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You're clutching at straws a bit now. You're not seriously suggesting the participants were sitting together in a small room for two months with their boobs out :) And I don't really understand why "trial" is in quotes. Why would it win an award if it wasn't valid? Are you saying we should delete all articles about people, companies and events that are "very good" at publicising themselves. Publicity is one of the main bases of general notability. Sionk (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by RS coverage, not what we think about the importance of a subject. We do this precisely to avoid subjective arguments like the ones you (Hasteur) are making.  As far as precedent, yes any company/product/person that manages to get dozens of RS to cover it in depth is notable.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't understand the passion about deletion. It's a fairly unspecial article about a fairly unspecial entity that happens to meet WP:GNG because it has valid referencing. I'm defending it precisely because it meets WP:GNG. I find the technology pointlessly annoying and I don't lactate, so I have no interest in breastfeeding. Fiddle   Faddle  08:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * comment Very ironical, how does this article meets WP:GNG? its a trial project and a fellow wikipedian (user Hasteur) debunked the very keen attempt for WP:Promotion by the people who have direct involvement in the app project. User Hasteur have provided more than enough valid reasoning for AFD. The article clearly falls in category WP:Promotion WP:SOAPBOX. Yes its right that AFD is not how a WP:COI should be handled, but this article violates not one or two but every policy known under WP:COI including WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PAY. Now i doubt this could be a WP:NOPR support by the editors defending to keep the article. What surprise me the most is that the last comment on the AFD page was by user "xeno" at 12:01 on 28 June 2014, but after my "strong delete" vote on AFD the article got three "Keep" votes within hours! This AFD needs to be seen by trusted Wikipedia admins. I can surely foresee something fishy going on around here Science.Warrior (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't "debunk" anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false.  And your implication of meat puppetry or worse by myself (a "trusted admin" with 32k edits since 2008), Trimtent (=Fiddle Faddle, 44k edits since 2006), and Sionk (35k edits since 2008) is WAY out of line.  I suggest you apologize immediately.  Sionk commented on June 27, well before you.  I saw this by chance on July 3 and by using Timtrent's name in my comment he was informed about this and commented.  (Since he promoted the article to mainspace, he should have been informed of the discussion from the beginning.  If Hasteur had looked at the article history instead of assuming incorrectly that Julie345 had moved the article to mainspace, he could have avoided making such incorrect accusations in this AfD.)
 * There is no conspiracy - just three experienced users who (gasp) understand policy regarding notability. BTW, while xeno ("a trusted admin"+bureaucrat with 89k edits since 2006) didn't comment on the article he did "debunk" the theory that Smallworldsocial/Julie345 had acted improperly.  AfC is the proper venue for COI creation of article - if you don't like that then try to get policy changed to forbid such creations.  (As it is, even COI creation in mainspace is not forbidden.) Until that time, you have no actual policy-backed argument to make - just a I don't think is should be notable non-argument.  Again, an independent reviewer (Timtrent) correctly assessed that the article was neutral enough and subject notable enough to move it to mainspace.  The only thing anyone has done improper is your assumption of bad faith against 3 very experienced editors.  The article is way way short of unfixable advertising - the actual standard for deleting promotional articles.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User ThaddeusB i have not accused anyone or made a assumption of bad faith, making gossips through grapevine. I have stated the policy WP:NOPR straight forward. It happens that's why the policy have been made, I will advise you to not to take it personally, our goal as a wikepedian is to double check that something like This don't happen and as you stated  "Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't debunk anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false"  its not on you to decide, leave that decision for other admins. I will also advise you quit boasting about your edit counts, doing so will not provide notability to the article. Its not about personal attacks as you taking it, its about being right and wrong, This article is a crystal clear example of using Wikipedia as a tool for self promotion. Science.Warrior (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you most certainly have implied myself and two other experienced users have colluded or otherwise acted improperly: "after my 'strong delete' vote on AFD the article got three 'Keep' votes within hours! This AFD needs to be seen by trusted Wikipedia admins. I can surely foresee something fishy going on around here". And yes, I very much am going to take it personally when someone levels very serious accusations against me.  You are the one who brought experience into it by calling for "trusted admins" to intervene, implying those of us who commented were not experienced or neutral - that is the reason I mentioned the edit counts.  Of course my editing does not impart notability.  Reliable source coverage imparts notability.  This subject has it, no matter how strongly you wish it didn't.
 * It is fact that Hasteur's argument was debunked. He claimed the article was moved to mainspace by Julie345.  That is false.  It is not a matter of opinion - anyone can verify this by looking at the article history.  It is also a fact that Julie345 did violate NOPR. She used Articles for Creation and attempted to create a neutral article, not an ad.  The article was then accepted as sufficiently neutral by a third party with a ton of experience in AfC.  Thus the article landed in mainspace through 100% proper means.  If you want policy to say an article should be deleted if it was created through a COI, then you need to get consensus for policy to say that.  At current, it doesn't.  Policy says no ads and no non-notable subjects.  This article is not remotely an ad and is clearly notable (as defined by policy no notability, not opinion).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have given the article a good copyedit. While there were a few sentences somewhat promotional (now fixed), it was already far from reading as an ad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article seems to be a medium of advertising, Its seems like the app developers are using Wikipedia article itself to gain notability, Going on reference number 25 retrieved from "dailymail" states "For now, the $1,500 price tag on a pair of Google Glasses will restrict the app'd user-ship to only wealthy families". So basically the app will probably wont make it to general public soon enough, I wonder how come the article on this app gets notability, as the app itself is beyond the reach of general public. Science.Warrior (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, please try to make relevant policy-based arguments. You do realize that the $1500 price is for Google Glass, not this app right?  Furthermore, price is absolutely irrelevant to notability. For the sixth(?) time, notability is based solely on level of reliable source coverage.  This app has achieved notability based on the coverage. Its as simple as that.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 5 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.