Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Tags


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Tags

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An application for the iPhone being blatantly advertised by its creator. Little independent evidence. &mdash; RHaworth 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am the creator of the app, but I did my best to offer a neutral point of view; please point me to the "blatant advertisement points" you mentioned as I tried to remove anything biased from the page, in some cases even going against my own believes. Any user is however welcomed to add her contributions having seen the web site or used the application, to foster this effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Please reviewers state clearly if the problem is for the creator of an object to create a page for the object: as in that case no editing of mine could obviously change the situation. Fbartolom (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promotional, notability concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See the conflict of interest guidelines. This isn't a borderline case: it's blatant advertising as User:RHaworth points out in the nomination. The self-promotion policy states:
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
 * This article is clearly a contravention of that policy. You state that you have done your best to offer a neutral point of view: that is good, but having a neutral point of view on something doesn't make it notable or non-promotional. The very existence of an article about a non-notable product makes it promotional.
 * We don't rule out articles on iOS applications: look at Angry Birds. The difference is things like iPhone apps only get included when they are notable. If your application becomes the next Angry Birds or Farmville or Doodle Jump, someone will make it a Wikipedia entry.
 * The article lacks good, independent reliable sources: a few reviews from blogs do not cut it for a Wikipedia article. Take a look again at the Angry Birds article: it has citations from The Guardian, Ha'aretz, Variety, Macworld, PCMag and so on. The combination of these issues taken together mean it is a pretty surefire delete. In fact, I'm surprised it got to AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course if I had reviews from The Guardian, Ha'aretz, Variety, Macworld or PCMag I would be extremely quick to add them. Please also consider, though, that this application does not qualify as a game to throw birds around and click them that may attract even toddlers: rather it's the first example of a new paradigm that I am sure will develop greatly in the future - the web site hosts an article on the subject: in fact no one so far has made an application in which normal users may post their messages to be seen in augmented reality. You may check but there is nothing. Consequently something that is one-of-a-kind belongs more to a media trying to catch excellence than to a newspaper trying to catch readers! Fbartolom (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I already nominated this for deletion once under G11, which happened before this editor recreated the article. It's a clear COI and self-promotion article for a non-notable iOS app. Ignoring the COI and promotional issues, a review on "Slap Start" is not remotely close to grounds to establish notability. Zachlipton (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and salt. Reviews on "Killer Startups" and similar blogs do not make a case for notability.  Obvious promotional insertion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, even in the small (but interesting) world of augmented reality, this is just another random app with no sources to speak of. - SudoGhost (talk) 16:39, 22 March 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.