Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneFriends


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star  Mississippi  02:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

OneFriends

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This references from Vents Magazine brought me to the page. It is an unreliable source due to them selling articles placements through Upwork and Fiverr. Looking closer at the WP:REFBOMB on the page, the references are mainly blogs which fall under the same category. A search online found nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Looks like a recent PR campaign but nothing in what we would consider reliable sources for establishing WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet,  and Australia. CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @WikiOriginal-9 Would you be able to kindly help correct what CNMall41 user is seeking to do?
 * That user CNMall41 had a while ago previously declined a draft submission for this article but the article has been significantly improved since then per the edit history (mainly using more neutral tone, with detailed referencing to almost each statement made, and further facts added). @WikiOriginal-9 as a Master Editor III, given your experience and contributions, and good judgment in having approved this article after reviewing it more than once, are you able to have this frivolous and biased deletion attempt removed? (It feels a bit like that user is looking for a way to justify their previous action taken, and can't accept that there are others with differing or wiser opinions on the article's quality and value for Wikipedia, and is now looking to find another way to disrupt a decent article). Thank you.
 * To address CNMall41's concerns anyway, that "Vents Magazine" source was used specifically to only reference one particular sentence about the year the company was founded, 2018, which is essentially self-evident based on the other sources and reporting (it can be worked out through a simple mental arithmetic calculation or inference). But more for completeness, this source was found nonetheless to support that fact since it explicitly stated that 2023 was the company's 5 year anniversary, but this in itself is not some key or arguable fact being made. The identity and name of the founder of the company is clearly established I think from the other more reputable sources already. The source in question was not used to support any other substantive or value statements made in the article. So in light of the above explanation, I don't think it even matters if that particular source on a deeper investigation is not the most reliable (since it was used to reference a minor point, that can be inferred by any intelligent reader of the other more reliable articles anyway). Finally, the accuracy of the entire article itself should definitely not be impacted, let alone potentially deleted (?!) due to this seemingly petty argument raised by CNNMall41 around a very minor point.
 * And to further clarify, the article as I read it, contains a wide variety of sources, ranging from well-known media like Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance to other online news publishers, magazines and commentators that cover a more particular topic (e.g. TV programming, film, art etc.). The higher volume of sources used was to address a previous improvement comment made by @WikiOriginal-9 which suggested some further independent sources to be added. Also the content of the article in some places specifically state that it is some "technology and social commentators" who have written about the nature of the app, and therefore in referencing the source of such statements it is only natural to reference the actual articles written by such commentators on the various publications online (magazines pieces, news pieces, explanation articles). Doing so was done to ensure a more neutral tone in the article, as opposed to making those value statements directly (and therefore not needing to incorporate such references/sources and a large number of them). Angelswithwings (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Angelswithwings (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also took the time to read through some articles on that Vents Magazine site. The magazine looks just like any other commercial for-profit magazine that covers news content and supports ads. I don't think there's enough evidence anyway to support your opinion that the source is clearly not reliable, especially without a better understanding of their editorial standards. Circumstantial pieces of information you've gathered on Google by itself, and then projecting that, is not enough to make such a bold definite statement about that publication I think (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, AP all have paid content too alongside their central reporting and writing). But anyway, as per above, whether Vents is used as a source or not, is really irrelevant to the overall quality and accuracy and notability of the article, which has been established through a variety of reputable sources already. Thanks. Angelswithwings (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector wanted to include you in this discussion since you're another Master Editor who had previously declined a 'speedy deletion' request for this article. That was back when the article was still in its very early rudimentary stages - since then the article has been improved significantly with many reliable sources and was earlier approved after a round reviews and improvements suggested by another Master Editor III, WikiOriginal-9. Yet still there's been a new disruptive deletion request as above. I'm sure if you take the time to read the sources and article and above details, along with your good judgment and strong insights, you'll see why this deletion request is groundless. Angelswithwings (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A final point for now, after investigating the article Revision History page and corresponding timestamps for when actions were taken by CNMall41, there was only 6 minutes ( 21:18, 7 November 2023‎ to 21:24, 7 November 2023) ‎between the time this user deemed the single Vents source was not reliable, to then deciding to nominate the entire article for deletion. During that 6 minute time window, it is clearly impossible that the user actually properly read all the 15/16 sources articles each (500+ words average per article approximately), did sufficient research and analysis on the subject of the article, and then came to an informed and fair view on the notability, reliability, details of the specific sources and article as a whole. It seems to have been a complete off-the-cuff, impulsive or prejudiced decision to cause disruption or validate their own previous actions which have been superseded by a more experienced Master Editor. It is also disrespectful of the efforts of other contributors to the article who have actually taken the time to properly research, analyze and write the article over a period of months - all that disregarded on the whim in 6 minutes. Angelswithwings (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are new and that having a page recommended for deletion can be frustrating. Let me point out that you need to make policy based arguments on why the page should be kept as opposed to making accusations against editors. As far as the WP:ASPERSIONS, see your talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the points above are focused on policy - that a review of the article in its current form (less the edits you made) had been satisfied and approved by a very experienced Master Editor less than 24 hours ago. The notability of the subject of the article had been established in multiple sources (as mentioned above, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, many news publications which all speak in depth with significant coverage on the specific topic of the article, and not just passing mentions). The article is written with neutral tone and rigorously referenced to improve its quality. The rationale for the use of a larger number of sources has also been patiently explained above, please refer to paragraph 3. The initial catalyst it seems for your actions related to the Vents site has also been explained in some detail - that it is not conclusive that that source is not reliable, and that it could still be reliable, yet nonetheless it was only used to reference a almost self-evident minor point in the article anyway. I'm happy to accept your deletion of that particular reference if you so insist (good faith), but definitely oppose any attempt to delete the article.
 * Thank you for understanding the frustration felt - since quite a lot of effort has gone into researching and making this a good quality Wikipedia article that covers a worthwhile topic (one that's probably going to be even more so over time). If you have time I'd suggest simply clicking "news" or "Google" at the top of the page in the Find Sources section and having a thorough read of those many sources which appear in addition to those already cited in the article that have been found. Please respect the work of others and refrain from actions which irreversibly and immoderately erase that, especially without having first become very well informed - this should prevent acting with prejudice and achieving a fair outcome :)
 * I am new to making edits but have read Wikipedia for decades and have also supported the project when requested to. Thank you. Angelswithwings (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH - they're all press releases, unreliable sources, or obvious sponsored content. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for joining the discussion. I'd have to disagree with your blanket statements there. If we take just for example the first source, Bloomberg via Bloomberg Terminal article, did you actually access Bloomberg Terminal through a subscription and read the news article there?
 * Also many of the articles are clearly reporting news, albeit in a positive light (since the story usually revolves around some success the company has had) - this does not mean it is immediately unreliable or obvious sponsored content. Many of the articles are written by journalists or reputable commentators within that space (e.g. Programming Insider). Certainly, the sources provide an in-depth and significant coverage of the subject as per Wikipedia notability guidelines.
 * There may be a couple of sources that could be labelled as a "press release" or more likely a news story written by a publisher that is based off a primary press release. These sources are used to support non-contentious facts within the article anyway.
 * (Finally I mention that earlier as per another editor GMH Melbourne's suggestions to improve the page by adding links from other Wikipedia pages so this article is no longer an orphan. Some attempts were made by me to improve this by trying to add in a couple of short sentences in the articles on "Friendship" and "BFF" with links. This seems to have been reverted by you and triggered also the above response. ) Angelswithwings (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a press release which has been reposted on Bloomberg. The original source is EINPRESSWIRE: as you can see here. Adding promotional mentions of this app on other articles is not appropriate, and it will not assist in preventing a deletion due to this AFD. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I think I'll keep the Bloomberg source as it is - it is used to support the first sentence on simply what the purpose of the platform is for - essentially self-evident and basic fact. I appreciate your note on not adding promotional mentions, never had that intention, simply wanted to add 2 links so this article is no longer an orphan (I didn't actually care about this until the other editor suggested it on top of the page). Angelswithwings (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I firmly stand by the other points I've already made in this discussion.* Angelswithwings (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was pinged above regarding a G11 speedy deletion request on this page when it was an early draft, which I declined. The speedy deletion criteria are meant to be applied very narrowly; G11 is for pages that are blatant advertisements, and I did not feel the page met the criterion. That action was not an assessment of the topic's notability nor suitability for Wikipedia, and it should not be interpreted as though it was. I have not reviewed the current article but I may comment later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I am going to ping the previous reviewers as well. Maybe they see something I missed in my evaluation of the sourcing.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment boss. Yes that makes complete sense. I think if you were to have a proper review and make your further comments that would help a lot. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Angelswithwings, do you have a connection with Onefriends? LibStar (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I support what the company is trying to do. Creating a wikipedia page was a thing I decided to do since had some free time, and now that I've put in fair bit of effort into the article, don't want to see it go to waste or be unreasonably deleted you know. Like to finish what I started. Not paid to write or anything like that. Was planning on starting a couple other articles in business or technology until this approved article got unnecessarily put up for deletion Angelswithwings (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:EFFORT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, the article should be kept because it meets Notability guidelines - significant in-depth coverage, many secondary independent sources, many different reliable sources. That's why the article was approved to begin with. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (and with that Bloomberg Terminal article, I'm no expert on Bloomberg Terminal editorial practices, but I assume not just any business can have an article published on there behind the expensive Bloomberg Terminal paywall/subscription - probably implied notability and importance). This is in addition to the other news articles and explanatory pieces that focus squarely and deeply on the article subject. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As in Bloomberg likely doesn't charge its professional Bloomberg Terminal subscribers $25,000-$30,000/year just to provide them news that is not important. It's a high standard. According to its website https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/solution/bloomberg-terminal/ "deliver award-winning coverage of companies, industries, markets and economies. We break news that moves markets - and you'll see it first on the Bloomberg Terminal." Angelswithwings (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg terminal subscribers are paying for detailed financial data and a software interface to make stock trades faster, not the news aggregation feed that is mostly press releases. Press releases do not support notability - and nor do the sponcon and churnalism that make up the rest of the article's sources. Literally anyone can pay a couple hundred bucks and post a press release that will end up on all sorts of news aggregation services. MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete article created by a single purpose editor that seems a WP:PROMO and using PR type sources and am concerned of WP:COI editing. I'm not convinced it meets the bar for WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep popularity is a factor behind Notability. Ranking 3rd on the Apple Store charts is an indicator of this. International scope. Significant coverage exists. 49.180.16.201 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — 49.180.16.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thanks for your contribution, Mr IP editor who happens to geolocate nearby to OneFriends's corporate HQ. Unfortunately 'popularity' and store rankings don't have much to do with notability as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject' quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
 * Australian here, been following the app's progress for a while. Won't be monitoring further replies, my two cents there 49.180.16.201 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You chopped off part of the sentence there. I'll fix it for you: "although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Firstly. wow. OK, in attempt to be constructive and reduce the volume of content here into something manageable for editors to find accessible, could Angelswithwings please help us by identifying below here the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject? As other reviewers have noted, the page needs to meet (at least) WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ● Keep: For reasons above.@Cabrils yes sure, I think it's clearest if we categorize the sources into a few groups.
 * A) Journalism and News Reporting (usually favorable coverage of some positive event, e.g. top charts)
 * 1. https://www.chiangraitimes.com/tech/onefriends-app-making-friendships-better-internationally-in-2023/
 * 3. https://programminginsider.com/onefriends-app-for-true-friends-trending-top-3-on-apple-charts/
 * 2. https://marketbusinessnews.com/
 * 4. https://nybreaking.com/onefriends-app-rising-in-popularity-and-what-it-means-to-add-a-friend-on-onefriends/
 * 10. https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273665563/onefriends-trending-on-app-store
 * 7. https://artdaily.com/news/154615/ (founder interview only)
 * 15. https://virtual-strategy.com/2022/10/13/
 * B) Tech and Social Trends Writers/Commentators
 * 5. https://filmdaily.co/lifestyle/how-the-high-end-onefriends-app-is-improving-friendships/
 * 6. https://s3.amazonaws.com/colunm/four-factors-behind-onefriends-growing-popularity/index.html
 * 12. https://thetechrim.com/5-reasons-why-onefriends-is-so-private-and-valuable/
 * 13. https://www.globaldatinginsights.com/social-discovery/going-one-step-further-with-onefriends/
 * 14. https://newsuptotime.com/three-of-the-best-apps-to-use-with-your-close-friends-in-2023/
 * C) Explanatory Articles and How-To-Guides
 * 11. https://womenfitnessmag.com/
 * D) Stories based off Republished Press Release or Press Release
 * 1.https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/solution/bloomberg-terminal/
 * 8. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/onefriends-friendship-app-growing-since-220400681.html
 * 9. https://www.globaltechreporter.com/article/
 * For notability, @Cabrils I think the first 3 articles under Journalism and News category above should work - shows notable event(s) in ranking high no.3 on the app store charts, global appeal with more than 100 countries with users, addresses the topic directly and in detail (significant coverage). All independent reliable sources. Angelswithwings (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — Angelswithwings (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Respectfully, I repeat: please help us by identifying below here the 3 best sources that establish notability of the subject? Cabrils (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that was written in the final paragraph above. More concisely worded:
 * 1. https://www.chiangraitimes.com/tech/onefriends-app-making-friendships-better-internationally-in-2023/
 * 3. https://programminginsider.com/onefriends-app-for-true-friends-trending-top-3-on-apple-charts/
 * 2. https://marketbusinessnews.com/
 * Angelswithwings (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thank you. OK, having absorbed most of the lengthy discussion above, and perused those 3 sources, I think this is (at best) WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NCORP. My vote is to delete. Possibly it could be moved to draftspace to develop over time... Cabrils (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, want to add that the article can be notable if said to meet WP:Notability (software) since it's about an app, and doesn't necessarily have to meet the WP:NCORP. Angelswithwings (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:Notability (software) has: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria:
 * It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information."
 * All the specific sources that focus on a particular field (apps, app tech, app store, social relations in field of mobile apps) discuss the app as being important/significant and so could in totality come to satisfy the above. Angelswithwings (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not 'discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.' You still need independent, reliable sources to meet that bar and there are none. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Chiangraitimes and Marketbusinessnewsare blatant fake news sites set up to push advertising. Chiangraitimes is ads mixed with repostings from the AP, and Marketbusinessnews is nothing but paid content and/or listicles with embedded spam links. Programminginsider is a single person's blog set up to look like a news site, and contains a mixture of posts about TV programming and obvious paid advertisements. These are not reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is all incorrect. All online new sites contain ads nowadays, from the biggest to the smallest. That's how news publishers and companies generate revenue in the current world, they aren't not-for-profits. As I'd mentioned above, simply because a site has paid content along with its central reporting does not mean it is unreliable - WSJ, Time Magazine, Economist, AP all have paid content alongside their central reporting. You cannot make blanket uninformed statements like that. M. Berman, editor of Programming Insider is a respected editor, journalist and expert in his field. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All online news sites emphatically do not contain ads dressed up to look like articles, which is what we have here. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was just flicking through the Market Business News Glossary of business terms, looks very accurate, quite comprehensive too. Again, the above websites all have news articles together with ads which is typical of online news distributors. (I looked up your username online though and it seems like a lot of people think very differently from you.) I have to go, better things to do. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Angelswithwings, please do not spend time doing opposition research on editors who disagree with you. Conversation should be on whether the article subject is notable as based on reliable, secondary independent sources. MrOllie is a very experienced editor, knows how to spot paid editing better than a new editor. If you wanted to make a career out of editing here, it would be wise to take his advice and remove references that he states are reflective of paid editing/advertising and work on improving the sourcing rather than seeking to attack him in this discussion. That reflects poorly on you, not him.
 * You are also bludgeoning this discussion. You've made your opinions known, you don't need to counter every editor who has an opinion that you disagree with. This is a collaborative editing platform and we all end up working alongside editors whom we disagree with on some points. It's not easy but it's necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem like a reasonable person Liz, so appreciate what you're trying to do. I only reply every time MrOllie in a troll-like way makes another blatantly false/exaggerated statement after already having voiced his initial opinion, to bring some balance. User Cabrils above tagged me first asking for assistance since he/she wanted a short-cut way of thinking, so after helping out, I think I could fairly add WP:Notability (software) as the criteria to use. Other user like Libstar's opinion I don't agree with, but I can see he's coming from a good place (haven't commented further). Thanks. Angelswithwings (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marc journalist/editor profile for the Programming Insider source found too. Well respected senior journalist) Angelswithwings (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, I've removed obvious and known seo sinks. Paid placement and press releases are not acceptable as indicators of notability, and many of the ones I removed are fairly unethical. The rest seem to be exactly what Mr. Mall and Mr. Ollie are indicating: more inorganic mentions on blogs at best. I understand you like the organization, but we need to have better sourcing, please. I also understand that our reviewers are overworked and that sources like this can easily be overlooked. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really here to second guess the AfC review, even if it is a little weird looking at the decline 10 hours earlier from the same person. AfC reviews are, nominally, supposed to accept anything "more likely than not" to make it through a AfD, which is unfortunate for the ones in the "than not", but not really much we can do about that unless we want those to take even longer than they currently do normally. I do want to point out that WP:NSOFT, if we're accepting it (far from a given since it's not actually a subject specific notability guideline), defers to WP:NCORP / PRODUCT for commercial software, defined as "distributed commercially or supported by businesses". NCORP is thus the controlling SNG in this instance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete; the sources are very far from meeting WP:NCORP, which is the relevant SNG. These are press releases, and WP:ORGIND (independence) doesn't seem to be met by any source. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * • Comment: Just had a read of the new opinions. It's very convenient and easy and not requiring much deeper intelligence to keep making the same group-think point of saying 'aha press releases!!', therefore not satisfying the criteria for notability. Very easy. When in fact press release sources have already been removed by another user above Kuru and even well before then, for the approximately 2/3 PR-related out of 16 sources, they were never meant to be used to establish notability. They're used to support basic self-evident facts (e.g. purpose of the app/platform). Many other pages on businesses also have press-releases, e.g. Uber source no.3. Press releases are used by businesses as a way of making an official announcement but in many wiki editor mindset seem to be some smoking gun for unreliability of ALL OTHER sources. (I seriously doubt companies care at all about what Wikipedia will be thinking when they issue a press release.)
 * Once that initial prejudice is made in this discussion, then further thinking is simply finding ways wherever possible to support that bias. Another alternative explanation for the OTHER news sources is that when journalists and commentators and employees of news publishers/sites see that an app is doing really well (e.g. topping charts, since main charts are a big deal and thing to monitor in the app market) they want some of that attention or want to draw traffic to their sites, so they come up with articles or write articles that they think people supporting that main app/business/trend want to read, and so they get some reflected importance/popularity/SEO etc. Source independence should be assessed individually looking at it in a silo almost since that's how the news publisher initially created it - not just making a blanket statement like, 'look, the articles are all favorable and supporting the app/company so clearly not independent'. In another sense and hypothetical, if we take 10 journalists and pack them into a single room and then another person in that room raises a Blue Colored piece of paper, obviously all 10 journalists reporting honestly on that event/entity/subject will write 'there was a blue colored paper being raised in the room' with almost uniformity - despite this seeming adherence to a single truth, this does not then mean that all the journalists reporting are non-independent. Have a nice day fellow humans. Angelswithwings (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2023 (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.