Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoink


 * 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 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoink

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

Delete WP:ADVERT Entire article has been written by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Verticalanswer with the name of the company that developed the subject. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should also mention the article does nothing to establish notability. There are hundreds of twitter et al clones, why is this one notable? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No assertion of notability under either WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. (No apparent awards, no significant non-trivial coverage, etc.) Also has long-standing issues with WP:ADVERT per nom. (Without prejudice to recreate if issues resolved) Guliolopez (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say speedy but this article has been here a while (some how). advert yes, and simple lack of a claim of notability.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article, as it stands right now, is about four months old. Previously it was a redirect to a Pokemon article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Spoink.com owns the only registered US trademark for the term Spoink. verticalanswer (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Spoink was featured at TechCrunch50 on September 8, 2008, recently mentioned in Newsweek and is substantially different from twitter as well as unique from other services currently available. verticalanswer (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any citations from reliable sources? Right now, the article has none. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Spoink.com owns the only registered US trademark for the term Spoink. Spoink, Inc. has been mentioned in numerous blog and new articles. Should I add these links?verticalanswer (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Owning the trademark doesn't prove notability (we own several trademarks, but they aren't notable, anyone can register anything as a trademark for around $8,000). Links to blogs or forums are not good as they fail WP:RS and even WP:LINKS, so can't be used anywhere.  Same for myspace, youtube or any other 'user' input websites.  If you have links to newspapers or websites that pass wp:rs and talk about the company as the primary source of the article, then yea, post them.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 13:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete then redirect to the appropriate list of pokemon Umbralcorax (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Of the thirteen links that verticalanswer just added, they fall into three categories. (1) Articles about some other product or service that have a one word mention of Spoink in a list of twitter clones. (2) Articles composed entirely of Spoink marketing material. (3) Blog posts from regular joes saying they use Spoink. I've removed them all. None of them come close to meeting "significant coverage", the first item on the list at WP:GNG. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've reverted the removal of the links. Other editors reviewing the AFD should have access to these to evaluate for themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no coverage of spoink in reliable sources. The links provided do not establish notability.  Blogs writng about spoink are not reliable.  The sources that are reliable are all writing about microblogging and simply drop the name spoink amongst many without any real coverage.  The only article of substance is TEch crunch, and it is a regurgitated press release. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 21 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.