Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStreet


 * 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. With a gentle reminder to the nominator to play the ball, not the editor. Whether you feel an editor has usefully contributed to the project is irrelevant to the question of whether a specific article should be deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

InfoStreet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created by User:Hutchisojl. She has an impressive userpage, but overall, I do not feel that she has improved Wikipedia through her contributions. She has created only three articles: blatantly promotional articles about Kashoo, InfoStreet, and SkyDesktop.

There are two reasons to delete this "InfoStreet" article. Even one reason would be enough, but I shall list both.
 * Argument A: The text fails G11 and WP:NOTPROMOTION. So it should be slow-deleted per G11.
 * Argument B: The subject fails our inclusion criteria. So it should be deleted per WP:42.

The SD Times ref fails SIGCOV and INDY, and the Directions ref fails INDY. Perhaps you will find some other sources; still, you may find it impossible to refute Argument B. User:Ihcoyc explains:


 * "The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.


 * "Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade.  And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt.  If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type.  A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel.  Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business."

You may vote as you wish. If you vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC); edited 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Its voluminous sources notwithstanding, this article fails to demonstrate WP:N. Sources are either primary or trivial in their coverage. Side note: I think we should take a deep breath before impugning the motives of new editors. I appreciate your strong advocacy in laying out the case against the article and mostly agree with your points, as evidenced by my "delete." But I am not so sure about your dismissal of trade publications. The simple truth is that many techy things are only covered by trade specific publications. If we preclude them entirely as WP:RS we will be setting up barriers to articles about legitimate topics. I would agree though that trade pubs need to be treated with some caution. Not all are equal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thank you for your words. About your last point: See our corporate inclusion guideline. WP:AUD says that every article must have at least one mainstream source, and that "media of limited interest and circulation" are OK only if an article already has at least one mainstream source. (This is true only for corporations; in this regard, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are more strict regarding corporations than regarding anything else.) True, the SD Times and Directions refs may fail SIGCOV and/or INDY, but in addition, I think that they also point to "media of limited interest and circulation". Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The company seems like it ought to be notable - it was one of the very earliest internet-focused companies - but the coverage just isn't there. I'm not impressed by the references in the article, and I found nothing to add to them in a search. BTW Unforgettable, I agree with Ad Orientem: you should focus your arguments on the article itself and the notability of the article's subject - not on the author of the article. IMO it's also inappropriate to instruct people how you think they should !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi MelanieN. Excellent point about instructing people how to !vote; I hadn't thought of that. I have now edited the relevant part of my nomination. Is it good now? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. You removed the instruction to !vote delete, but you are still telling people what they have to do in order to respond to your satisfaction. (If you vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.) IMO you should trust Wikipedians to know how to comment at an AfD. And whaddaya know - it turns out that we all agreed with you anyhow! --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 29 January 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.