Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parking In Motion


 * 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 05:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Parking In Motion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Precautionary afd given the large amount of self-published sources. At best borderline notable so far. My biggest concern is based off a report at WP:COI/N which alleges the article's primary authors are also the designers of the app. I refer the case to the community. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless there is some reason I'm not seeing to discount the existing sources, I think notability has been established. CNet and Business Insider are reliable publications, and both instances of linked coverage are significant, direct, and in detail. If I'm missing something, let me know. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A a parking technology company and a provider of dynamic and real time parking data..... In May 2011, Parking In Motion debuted its QR Code campaign at the International Parking Institute (IPI) conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in its effort to "make parking fun".  Utterly no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability.  Keep only if you want yuppie drivers to be screwing around with their Internet phones instead of watching the road while looking for parking places. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - spammy and non-notable, should have been speedily deleted per G11 and/or A7. ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I believe that this is spam and only for promotional purposes. I saw that a speedy deletion was requested because of this and it was removed by someone that I believe is a developer of this app (due to their username). Cnet and Business Insider are also the only third party sources for this article; all the rest are self published sources. MissPageantNews (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The CNet and Business insider reviews make this a notable app. Criteria_for_speedy_deletion G11 does not apply, this is a description of the app and it is not unambiguous advertising; A7 does not apply, as a parking app is a useful product (The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines). COI is a reason to improve an article, not to speedy delete it. Wxidea (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep LA Times, CNet and Business Insider qualify as notable. Could use some more technical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.214.36 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — 108.23.214.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There are at least two reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. That's pretty much always enough for WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Yes, the article uses non-independent sources. If there are problems with the way those sources are used -- remember, non-independent sources are not banned, it's about how they're used -- the article can be edited accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2011 (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.