Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShareNow


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ShareNow

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

(prior AfD) Other than brief discussion here and here, article's subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The other sources used in the article are to non-WP:RS, non-independent sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article. There is also a conflict of interest issue here with the major contributor to the article, see and COIN. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish that the rule on notability being established by "significant coverage" was really enforced. Then WP would have about 10% of the articles it does now on contemporary topics. However going by WP standards as they are now applied, ShareNow is notable and I have to vote Keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The references currently used in the article admittedly leave something to be desired when it comes to reliability of sources. However, I did find these articles from independent sources that speak of ShareNow in a non-trivial manner as well as these  that report on ShareNow while it was still known as Izimi. I think these should be enough to establish notability and verify most of the claims made in the article. Some cleanup is needed, though; we can start by removing the inappropriate ELs to individual ShareNow profiles et al. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I too wish that the rule on notability being established by "significant coverage" was really enforced, except to borrow a cliche from Ghandi, I'll "be the change I want to see". That's why I vote to delete this nonnotable advertisement. Themfromspace (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the outstanding thoughtful comment. However, it is still not enough to convince me that this article should be singled out for deletion when so many less notable remain. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a really good "keep" rationale... Cirt (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your massive AfD's on non-notable topics then. Project Scientology alone has 300 to 400 at least. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , please stop with the WP:POINT disruptive comments which are not related to this AfD. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I added some of the info from sources found by SWik78, note the refs now include stories by The Financial Times and The Telegraph. I believe the article just barely satisfies notability now. Raven1977 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article meets notability criteria, and WP is not a paper encyclopedia. In fact, as a WP user I find neutral, reliably sourced articles on current software and websites to be highly useful. Vendor claims tend not to stand up for long under editors' scrutiny. So let's keep this one. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:52, 30 October 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.