Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebStarts


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WebStarts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Borderline speedy (created by single purpose account); no reliable third-party sources to establish WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability (the blurb on KillerStartups appears to be a press release written by the company). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Well, I do agree from your perspective I look like an SPA account. I am not though, I am a web designer by profession and have used WebStarts several times. I thought that it was interesting that WebStarts (A prominent company in the industry with over 800,000 hosted sites) does not have a Wikipedia Article, so I created one. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I do know a reliable source when I see one.

1). Webstarts is clearly a valid competitor to companies such as Wix.com, Weebly, Webs.com (formerly FreeWebs), Yola, etc...

2). The KillerStartups review, was not a press release by Webstarts, but in fact a review by KillerStartups Employed Writer 'Fredi'

3). The AppAppeal review is undoubtedly written by AppAppeal (not a press release) AppAppeal states written by "AppAppeal Editor"

Connorrhule (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The KillerStartups entry is a trivial mention of the software, and does not cut it as a reference, I'm afraid. The AppAppeal review is more thorough but I doubt that "AppAppeal" is a reliable source - if it does qualify as a reliable source it would possibly be sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weakest of keeps. Since competitors are mentioned, and wiki-linked, I'm not sensing a spam campaign. It could use some better sources establishing notability (I couldn't find any mentions in our library business databases). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if a source isn't considered "reputable" by Wikipedia, then the company doesn't exist according to them? I am not trying to be a pain, just curious about all of the little intricacies... If anyone else knows any "reliable" sources for Webstarts please post. Connorrhule (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is lacking in cited sources. Out of curiosity, at what point does a second-party source become "reputable"? I know that AppAppeal is definitely a go-to place for Web Applications and a highly trafficked site. Whether or not it conforms to Wikipedias "Reputable" source list or not I don't know. I consider the biggest sources such as news companies to be the most biased and unreliable personally... And I do not know how it works on Wikipedia, but shouldn't there be a reason other than not 100% reliable sources? Such as: the company doesn't really exist, cause if you do a little research into Webstarts you will find that it isn't something I am making up.
 * Reliable and verifiable sourcing is a problematic area. You can start down the path of trying to unravel Wikipedia's byzantine group logic by checking out WP:Sources. It's easier to say what IS a verifiable source (e.g., New York Times) than what is not. Check out the Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some of the fun and games. I agree with you that there are topics (such as this one) that may be perfectly reasonable for a Wikipedia entry, but they don't rise to the level of being on the cover of Time Magazine. I get fierce headaches over this whole area. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with this topic, I have put way to much energy into it. This is absurd. Connorrhule (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Source to WebStarts Page. 100Best-Web-Hosting Connorrhule (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The main review at AppAppeal is a bit gushing and sounds press release based to me. (Some of the user appended comments are far less enthusiastic...) We do look for news coverage - but not the sort based on press releases. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Even if it sounds slightly "press-realease-ish" it doesn't mean that it is. AppAppeal is an unbiased news targeted for new internet apps (notice if it were a press release, there wouldn't be criticism as well). As for the comments, that is irrelevant, some good some bad... It doesn't get any more subjective then a comment. Connorrhule (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick Question How does the deletion process on Wikipedia work? Who actually makes the final decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This promotionally is all about the features and advantages of using this run of the mill web hosting business.  The references provided are all trade sites for the web hosting industry, and none of the coverage establishes that this one among the hundreds of similar businesses has any historic, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for a community... Everybody just shuts everything down. How about you do a little bit of research, you will find that the company is definitely valid and does have technical significance. If you knew anything or have ever used Webstarts you would know it is not run of the mill, and that the technology is great. There are few competitors that are in the same sect of web hosting (listed above). Also, do you really think I am spamming? Seriously?
 * Have just done a bit of research (six pages of ghits) while taking a break. Found only one review that didn't look PR based, and that was brief. The rest appeared to be PR based stuff, or user editable places (like here - Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia...),  including the usual Facebook and similar, or blogs and forums. You've put work into the article. Fair enough. We put work into Wikipedia, too. I'm not accusing anyone of spamming. Just pointing out that I haven't found sources that fit the standards so far. Not every company gets an article. (Some don't want articles when they've got them. They find out that anyone can edit and stuff they don't like - and which is well sourced - gets put in.) It's not up to us to find the sources. If the article goes, keep a copy and try again when you've got the needed sources to show that an article is merited. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a community. Just like a monastery is, for example. You try joining a monastery and then asking if you can bring your girlfriend in... Peridon (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for what you have done and your time. I will keep a copy if it does get deleted, and in the future post sources if I come across some. Connorrhule (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Valid Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Since the article hasn't improved from its somewhat promotional tone ('you will'...) and still isn't supplied with what I consider adequate references, I'm going for delete. I expect we'll see it back - hopefully properly referenced and encyclopaedic. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - notability is not established. I did a search for independent news about this company and came up empty.  Sea photo Talk  02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough to establish notability, then add on the above issues... that's enough for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find independent reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 12:52, 3 July 2010 (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.