Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobicip


 * 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. -While there were spam concerns, editors supporting the article pointed to the not-insignificant coverage. Both positions are reasonable, and no clear consensus developed. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mobicip

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Created by a single-purpose editor who is here purely to advertise his or her own product. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note although the NYT reference is just a blog post, the app wasn't mentioned in the actual paper. And the "groundswell of support" online petition at petitionsonline only collected 152 signatures. Point being the app seems fairly non-notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed as well, a previous article advertising this software was speedy deleted. Mobicip Online Safety AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per the first five reviews in the article. The NYT blog is a reliable source because New York Times is. It's not a requirement that reliable sources have to be offline. Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Even if sources can be found for this, the text we have been handed remains blatant advertising:  Due to the added mobility offered by personal internet-enabled devices like the iPod touch, securing the home PC, home network, or the enterprise network is not enough anymore. Modern devices can be used to access the Internet anytime anywhere. This expands the need to offer filtering solutions that can work within the constraints of a low-power device and offer protection wherever it is used.  PR insertions of "articles" like this need to be dealt with summarily, without even the opportunity for getting bogged down in lawyering over notability. That said, commercial software products need some kind of historical or technical importance in order to merit articles, not merely existence verifiable by reviews; this makes no claim of that kind of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is full of bias. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never tried to hide 'em. You think that text isn't unambiguous advertising? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It reads like an advertisement, but from what I can see, it can be fixed. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, but that won't change your opinion because you think that it's non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Articles about run of the mill software packages are doomed to become either spam vehicles or unexpandable stubs.  Remove the spam, and you're left with a minimal article such as your edits left.  Yes, my opinion is and remains that notability guidelines need to be tightened up for them so that only those packages that are genuinely technically or historically important get articles.  A mention in a review alongside several of its competitor packages -- the substance of the NY Times review -- may count under the general notability guideline, which to me shows that it doesn't work when we're dealing with products like this, made by people with marketing departments and advertising budgets. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is neither made by a marketing department nor for advertising purposes. Please review the article based on merit, and attribute any discrepancies to the inexperience of the author. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'm a new Wikipedia contributor learning the ropes using this article as an experiment. The first article submitted was deleted, so I followed the guidelines in creating the second stub by adding references wherever possible. This version was retained with no corrections, but there was a note that the stub needs to be expanded. In response to the prompt, I added more content and references, but now it is again being considered for deletion. The company has been around for a year, and the events noted had references and links. Whether they were notable or not is a matter of perspective. For a small app company that came out of nowhere, the events were notable. I'm happy to take this article back to the stub state that it was in before. Also pointers to good practices for an article like this one would be useful. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To make the case for notability, please also see the other reviews besides New York Times in this version of the article. Among 100,000 apps on the App Store, this app has been listed in the Top 100 paid apps under the Education category since August. It has the best customer reviews among comparable apps on the App Store. The information mentioned here is independently verifiable, but has to be done on the App Store and so can't add references here. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are aware I take it, that we tend to dislike people using Wikipedia as a billboard to advertise their own products, we even have a content guideline explicitly explaining it. Spam AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But, given the secondary sources, do you still feel there isn't enough notability here to merit an article or stub? I will work on modifying the content to have a neutral point of view, if that is the point of contention. Whatsurstory (talk)


 * Sorry even given the secondary sources that I've seen I don't see the notability. Each of them have reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for the iPhone. Some of them review multiple applications every single day. The fact that people have written reviews of your product doesn't prove notability.


 * You also said that your app is in the top 100 paid education apps. If you think that qualifies it as notable, do you think we should automatically have articles on all the applications in the top 100 paid education apps category?


 * I'm sorry but what makes your app any more notable than any of the other thousands of iPhone apps out there? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean that at all. The article was meant to be a stub that can be referred from this page on Wikipedia that lists available content control software for different platforms. This is the most popular content control software for the iPhone or iPod Touch, illustrated by its presence in the Top 100. Would it merit a presence on the list based on that? Whatsurstory (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So your goal here is just to have your software listed on that "List of..." article? Sorry but the only reason we have "List of" articles is to point to articles. And the only reason we have stubs here is because people haven't gotten around to writing articles. The idea isn't to that a page can either be an article or a stub. And those "List of..." articles get deleted quite frequently, because again the intention is that Wikipedia should be a collection of articles, not lists.


 * Do you have a source that proves that your software is the most popular content control software on the iPhone? And I'm not asking for you to tell us that if we analyse the iTunes Store we'll come to that conclusion too (that would be original research). I mean an actual reliable third-party source that says "Mobicip is the most popular blah blah blah". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than top 100 lists like this this and this and the fact that no other comparable app is on the list, there is no independent third-party source that mentions that Mobicip is the most popular. Whatsurstory (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete All consumer products get reviewed. Reviews do not establish notability. Those are the only references that exist. Miami33139 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you call yourself an inclusionist? Most software nominations show that not all software gets reviewed. Even when other things besides reviews gets shown, you have a problem with them also. It seems like your issue is that you don't want any software to have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the debate about whether a review constitutes notability. Just to be clear, if I start selling a piece of software you are perfectly okay with me coming to Wikipedia and writing an article about it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is neutral which I took care of the spam. No spam, no problem. Joe Chill (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool I get it now. Step 1) Develop application. Step 2) Write article on Wikipedia about application. Step3) Get User:Joe Chill to rewrite to create legitimacy. Step 4) Profit!!! AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't. I'm fine with articles if they are neutral and notable. Joe Chill (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So back to the review==notability argument. Given that appadvice has reviewed somewhere in the region of four to five hundred apps, are they all automatically notable now? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand about multiple sources? Joe Chill (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make if one site reviews hundreds of products or three or four sites review hundreds of products? Out of all the sources there is only one that isn't in the business of reviewing software every week or every day. One. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you only have that opinion about software? Do you think that film or book review sites don't show notability? Your opinions are very bias and not supported by anything. Articles don't get deleted in AFD by opinions like yours. Joe Chill (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have that opinion about everything not just software. Just because a film or book is reviewed doesn't make it notable. There are whole industries that have developed around reviewing anything and everything, simply having something reviewed doesn't make it notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of reviews. All consumer products do not get reviews--anyone who thinks so is probably biased by the areas where a;ll major consumer products like automobile models, get reviewed, and are all notable. Full independent reviews are in my opinion,   the most reliable of all sources for notability of a product--they are perhaps even  a better evidence than the majority of "awards" .  WP:N makes it very clear that famous is not necessary for  notability. If it were, we'd be a much abridged encyclopedia. Technically or historically important is making a judgement about the value of something, and we do not do that.    DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the debate about whether a review constitutes notability. So just to be clear, if I start selling a piece of software you are perfectly okay with me coming to Wikipedia and writing an article about it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f you start selling a piece of software, and it gets such reviews, it is notable. Full product reviews are the sort of RSs that get written about products, and have uniformly been accepted as such. The criterion of historically or technically significant for products, however, is I think your own invention. for products.   DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So every product in every monthly issue of Consumer Reports deserves an article? I don't think so. Whether something is technically or historically significant, that is a call for reliable sources to make. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Those are excellent examples of the sort of group reviews that are not RSs for notability--they do not give significant  coverage of any one product, but discuss a type of product, and give  comparative statistics and a brief evaluation of usually dozens and sometimes hundred of similar  products.--except   for automobiles, which they do give full reviews, and where I would indeed consider them significant--and also except for an occasional featured review of a single major product.  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's examine these reviews in the article then. There are 5. Three are trivial, consisting of one to three paragraphs.
 * NYTimes - This online-only review hides most of the review behind a link, but clicking through shows the rest of the article is about other software not this one. This is a trivial, routine, Consumer Reports style review.
 * UnwiredView - This also appears long because it shows a bunch of screenshots and single sentence paragraphs - clearly a review designed for the ADD set but is not actually detailed. Is UnwiredView even an RS we should consider for notability? It's a two person blog.
 * about.com - Shows the routine page splat that drives their advertising revenue. This is not good coverage
 * Ventura County Star - This is so far the only undeniably mainstream RS that gives extensive coverage and, unfortunately, it's a regional C-list paper with a low circulation promoting a local business. Does this actually confer notability? We would not accept this as conferring notability on any other product.
 * Appadvice.com - A group blog that accepts ads from the products being reviewed, with close to 600 reviews, how does this separate Mobiclip from any other iPhone applet? The point of notability is to separate the routine run-of-the-mill product from things of significance. As you said Consumer Reports does, this is one of dozens or hundreds of similar products. Does this review from a blog, in the context that they review anything the blogger chooses to with no editorial discretion, show any significance? If so, when can we expect to start documenting the Sunbeam 3916 Heritage Series 2-Slice Toaster? It's reviewed, in-depth, from a specialized RS at least as credible as appadvice.com.
 * DGG, what I'm asking, is for a critical review of sources when they are presented. You said you want to keep this on the basis of reviews. How do these reviews show notability? When looked at critically, they do not. If we simply accept large numbers of references that claim notability without examining them, have we actually determined anything? Miami33139 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the reviews in the article are just sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm. You don't have a problem with people writing articles on Wikipedia about their own products or services? You're fine with Wikipedia being used as a billboard? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (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.