Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwiboo


 * 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. Delete per snow. Absent SPAs with a possible COI, there's no evidence and scarcely an assertion of notability. StarM 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwiboo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP A ntv (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Give a better explanation, and remember Wikipedidia does not exist in a vacum.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per WP:ORG, Probably also a conflict of interest-- this and the Paul Marshall (kwiboo) article are largely authored by User:Marshp3, who may be Paul Marshall himself.  Linguist At Large  19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the author should be named, does this not break the anonymous nature of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk) — 83.142.228.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The authors of every article are named. See the little "history" tab at the top of every article? –  iride scent  23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've declined a speedy on this, but after digging around for sources, I can find no significant coverage in external sources other than a single not-really-relevant-unless-the-article-is-to-be-hugely-expanded article on their sponsorship of a minor-league football team. –  iride scent  20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sponsorship is a notable point, perhaps kwiboo has or will sponsor wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk)
 * Or perhaps not. Look around; do you see any advertising? No. –  iride scent  23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well done you! Yes you are SO correct there isn't any sponsorship. But there is a HUGE "Donate Now >>" button at the top of the page.
 * We appreciate donations, not bribes, thank you.--MrFishGo Fish 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The refences in the article check out. Interesting that they support DotNetKicks, a widely used, open-source tagging app. Also, the web2 name generator reference is an interesting one, especially as it's mentioned on blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMiller2 (talk • contribs) — PaulMiller2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. It's certainly noteworthy, there's a story here, particularly around the name and the comments on external sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.199.5 (talk) — 78.129.199.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * the issue is not if it is noteworthy, but the lack of coverage in external sources, and the lack of WP:Verifiability. A ntv (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, it is noteable without sources by the very nature of the story of the company history and the fact that Wikipedia is the only source on the internet KEEP Already !voted (83.142.x.x). Black Kite 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * the fact is that external sources are needed. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a place where to write for the first time some stories. A ntv (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: kwiboo is a registered trademark so the article assists with the identification of the fact that it is already a trademark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 82.31.182.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete the links given in the article are as follows:
 * 1) A deadlink to a subpage of the companies website.

Link no longer dead
 * 2) A link to a name creating tool from which the companies name is said to be derived.

As for point 1, typos do happen see above (should be company's......)
 * 3) A blog.
 * 4) Another blog.
 * 5) A page from the companies official website.

 !! 
 * 6) A link to a website that apparently uses the companies product.

dotnetkicks does use kwiboo websnapshot, see the article thumbnails to the right of the screen, they are watermarked (bottom right corner)
 * 7) The details of their trademark case.
 * None of these show the level of reliable sourcing which is required to form the basis of a verifiable, neutral article, free of original research or establish notability under the general guideline or the specific guideline for companies. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly the same as User:78.129.199.5 above. Black Kite 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)  a known UK IT firm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.152 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 78.129.142.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per WP:CORP, as I believe someone already mentioned. --fvw *  23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP, insofar as the company has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. This is Wikipedia, not Google.--MrFishGo Fish 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of reliable sources to establish notability, per WP:CORP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources, no established notability. Exxolon (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would need to see more mention in secondary sources in order to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Needs reliable sources to establish that it is notable per WP:CORP. &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are a MS certified partner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phayman (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)  — Phayman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In the absence of evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and in the presence of suspicious accounts related to commercial interests, we must delete. Skomorokh  18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For the following confirmed reasons
 * Microsoft Certified Partner, confirmed link to Microsoft website (pretty reliable)
 * kwiboo provide the IT solution to the image capture of dotnetkicks.com (and others) see links to the site and thumbnails on the site for evidence and the referenced blog
 * A confirmed registered trademark (fact)
 * the dot-o-mater website does generate the company's name if the user is patient enough to keep clicking
 * This article does not infringe upon the interests of others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)  — 82.31.182.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Struck through vote. This same IP has voted twice in this AFD. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these reasons are good enough to keep the article... --Tone 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the above delete comments. The "keep" supporters, who are obviously connected to the subject, come across as more interested in getting the company name into Wikipedia than in establishing a serious reputation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Also, trout or minnow the employees and send them towards Conflict of interest so they can understand why we're not buying the keep !votes. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:19, 15 December 2008 (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.