Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Flow


 * 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 Move back to Draft. I do not see a single editor in the discussion who argues that the article is notable, and we see that the whole team was hired to promote a non-notable subject, so that I will also salt it. Drafts do not have to be notable, but next time it goes to the main space it should happen via an AfC submission.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Gadget Flow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Most of the sources listed are passing mentions in listicles in obscure sources with dubious independence. Was declined multiple times in WP:AfC before User:DragonflySixtyseven bypassed the process for no clear reason. Joe Roe (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added 10 More references to verify our notability :) Hope that helps!

Hey : - Yes, many of the sources aren't primarily about the company, but several are, and the passing mentions give depth to the article. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and we have met that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xqlusivevan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you associated with The Gadget Flow? If so please note that you are strongly discouraged from editing articles about your own company. Joe Roe (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Joe, yes I am associated but the editor who initially drafted the story was not because we want it to be written from an individual's perspective. Hope that helps!


 * Hello, have you consulted DragonflySixtyseven, the editor who accepted the draft? You should have asked them first before nominating this for deletion. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * They didn't accept the draft in the usual way (maintaining a redirect and AfC categories for tracking), they simply moved it to article space. In any case, I wanted to open up a deletion discussion with the entire community, not a single user or an IRC cabal. I included their username in the nomination so they would get an alert. Joe Roe (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Sources Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/Re-Draftify: This had a rocky start as a Draft and I think the author is struggling understanding what constitutes a reliable source. It probably wasn't ready for mainspace, but it was moved there so here we are. , really, an IRC cabal?  Goodness.  I think the article subject may actually be notable (barely), hence my keep or re-draftify vote.  Note the PCMagazine article (I've viewed it, it is comprehensive coverage), and the other reputable news organization coverage. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Thanks : I went ahead and added 10 more references and fixed the presentation so it doesn't read as promotion, let me know if there is anything else :) Enjoy your day!

Thanks for the Keep Vote - The initial article was 2000+ Words giving information about the team, the early days, important updates, describing the business model etc but the admins found it to be promotional and the version you see now live was recommended from an admin.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * ''' / /  I'd really appreciate your vote.  Xqlusivevan (talk), 22 April 2016, 9:03 (UTC)
 * Return to Draftspace again as I myself was still questionable to this and felt this still need better sources. SwisterTwister   talk  05:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to the Draft namespace I believe that this article can be further improved in the draft namespace. It has a sufficient number of references, but this article is too short. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, if kept, WP:TNT the article, and move it to draftspace. I also do not think that User:Xqlusivevan should edit the new draftspace article, due to COI, have a neutral editor work on it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify because it probably could be made into a good article, it just needs more sources. Tom29739 [ talk ] 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep many of the sources aren't primarily about the company, but several are, and the passing mentions give depth to the article. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and we have met that requirement. Also COI states that its not recommended not prohibited. The article was written by a 3rd party author that doesn't work on Gadget Flow. Xqlusivevan (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) — Xqlusivevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep it It's noteworthy enough, they've been around for the past few years but the article needs some additional information for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassieou (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  — Cassieou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep/Enhance keep it as its a really cool platform and I know the company for years, the sources seem fine and credible but it needs more content.Giannis8821 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC) — Giannis8821 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Discount the last 3 votes, as all of the users have only made edits on this topic, see WP:SPA. Also "It's really cool" doesn't count as a valid reason, it's pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT in reverse. All of this is WP:COI editing for a company that doesn't seem to be notable ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment ThePlatypusofDoom I've known the company for a while now and I went ahead and edited the page by polishing its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis8821 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cassieou and Giannis8821 are ✅ sock puppets of Xqlusivevan. See Sockpuppet investigations/Xqlusivevan.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources whatsoever to support WP:CORP notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, PC Magazine is considered a reliable source, isn't it? The sources MAY not establish enough notability, but there are certainly a variety of reliable sources there and at least some have comprehensive coverage. As I noted above, it may not be enough to establish notability, but it might and is worth taking a good look at it or at least draftifying it for more development. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or move back to draft because it's not notable, and it doesn't look like it will be any time soon. Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   07:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - This is gross WP:PROMO by an SPA with a COI, as well as a procedural violation. If processes are not going to be respected, then there is no need for an article, especially when said article has failed AFC twice.   As noted above, the sources don't meet standards for depth of coverage. MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (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.