Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollom


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mollom

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

No assertion of notability made. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * No assertion of non-notability made either. It would be nice if you expanded on that reasoning, especially explaining if and how you have attempted to investigate this topic. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a description of non notable product, bordering on spam. None of the references provided in the article are independent. A search returns nothing that could constitute an independent reliable source. Nuttah (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Mollom web service has recently been reviewed in several print publications (http://www.datanews.be/nl/news/90-112-21395/mollom-beschermt-internet-tegen-rommel.html) and independent websites like CMSWatch (http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1272-Drupal,-Mollom,-and-the-Future-of-Blog-Spam). In the case of the Dutch article in Datanews, the article was published after the Mollom Wikipedia entry was created. I'll edit the page to include additional references to these independent, reliable sources. I argue that the article should be edited to include additional references, rather than deleted. -Keith.smith (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete--though the original author has added a few references, none of them are in fact so independent and in-depth as to establish notability for the subject. This may well change in the next few months, but it's not there yet. The Datanews article is on their website (not from their print newsletter/magazine), and isn't really an article (or even a review) as much as it is a notification. The CMS thing is borderline for me, since that site is really a blog, and the article spends only three paragraphs on Mollom (again, a notification more than a review, since the author doesn't really know the program yet: "It's hard to know, at this point.") Finally, TechCrunch is a blog also, and like the other references, this is a notification. In other words, the sources established that the product exists and that it is being tested, not that it is notable (certainly not according to WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. Oroso (talk)  08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I think the Datanews article is nearly enough to satisfy WP:N, but not quite. The other sources aren't reliable or independent enough. Epbr123 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've included a reference to an article in Jobat, a Belgian employment website with a weekly print magazine written in Dutch. The article (scanned images available at http://buytaert.net/files/jobat08-interview.pdf) is primarily an interview of Dries Buytaert, but devotes an inset to Mollom on page two. Keith.smith (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I will simply note that I arrived at this page hoping to learn something about Mollom, and I did. To me, that makes it a useful article. Mcherm —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 31 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.