Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meetro (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Meetro
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Both references and external links show notability of the concept, but this SaaS itself fails WP:GNG. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Paul Bragiel. The software looks as if it was mildly notable in its time, and so is still probably a useful search term. However, most of the article consists of technical details that weren't sourced when they were added to the article and are probably unsourceable now. The details that are sourced tend to relate to its business side - a short paragraph, based on these, in the Paul Bragiel article would both be relevant there and provide sufficient details for anyone wanting to know what Meetro was. PWilkinson (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , and . SL93 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In order of appearance: (1) the SaaS itself is discussed on margin of trivial notice, with 100% of coverage being about future expectations, the article mainly goes about company and social messaging concept; (2) can't comment, as I can't access it; though I'm not sure Chicago Sun-Times is something one can use to prove the notability of software; (3) actually implies that the reader is not aware of the software (note: at least the third article in the series); (4) WP:PAYWALL and (5) you must be kidding: it lists Meetro along with 5 other non-notable apps. Conclusion: all the 5 sources imply the lack of notability. See WP:NSOFT for how this should affect the article. So how do these sources show that Meetro deserves its own article instead of a common article for social messaging SaaS? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. SL93 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is likely to change the discussion output most. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything needs to be an argument. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:NSOFT is an essay and an article can't be deleted or merged because of an essay. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing can be removed or merged because of an essay, guideline or policy. Something can be deleted or merged because there are valid reasons to do so, and this is the case. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and I disagree. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Selective merge: This is as notable in the form of a post-2001 silicon valley internet startup. Anyone nominating an article for deletion must remember that as an article is deleted, its contents and all history is permanently erased from history. If you are going to delete this article, please first move relevant content into the founder's Paul Bragiel article. 24.7.27.209 (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not specific to this article, but perhaps a better solution than keep/delete/merge with founder -- I noticed User:Czarkoff and User:Ihcoyc recently on other AfD pages about silicon-valley-based startups, and they had similar reasons for nomination. They were real companies with enough support to have a wikipedia article, were covered some in the news, but did not individually fit notability requirements. In the case of Meetro and others, I will agree that the software is not notable today. However, I do believe the existence and culture of such companies to be notable. I would be satisfied if they could be merged into an article about such internet startups, summarized and combined, with much less emphasis on the actual software. 24.7.27.209 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of PWilkinson's comment. He said the company was mildly notable in it's time. Mildly notable is notable, and if it once was notable, then it remains notable permanently; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it contains an historical record. The relevant policy is NOT DIRECTORY. If we were merely a current business directory, then we'd delete it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a good rationale to merge the company info (a small section in the article) somewhere. The article is about software, and notability is not inherited. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing notability under WP:ORGIN. No demonstration that this product has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. --Ifnord (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2012 (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.