Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiFi Map


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WiFi Map

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. No significant coverage found. Third-party sources provided appear to be sponsored content without editorial independence. James (talk/contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note This comment by the article creator suggests that the article is SEO spam. James (talk/contribs) 16:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can safely draw that conclusion from just that comment. Assume good faith. It is a reasonable expectation that a Wikipedia article one creates will become visible on Google - article creators want their article to be read, otherwise what would be the point of writing it - the article creator may not have known about Google's indexing delays or other possible benign explanations for the issue.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The article has serious grammatical and stylistic problems in places, but that can be fixed. There are clearly enough independent reliable sources covering this software to have an article about it - yes, some sources, like CNet Downloads and Crunchbase, just basically republish press releases, but not all of the references are of that type.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  21:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an assertion of rs but no citations. It would help the decision if the keep side could show which sources are acceptable given the amount of pr here
 * Weak Delete: WiFi Map has received coverage in Money Marketing, which is a major publication in the United Kingdom. However, as of now, that's the only notable source that I'm seeing. Crunchbase is also a pretentious publication but this seems to only be a company profile, rather than in-depth coverage. Unfortunately though, WiFi Map is not a new app and if it were truly notable, it would have received more coverage by now, in my opinion. Carajou (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per . "...sponsored content without editorial independence..." translates (to me) as advertisement, as "not notable" evidenced by a lack of reliable sources. If the company was notable (WiFi Map, LLC) maybe this could be placed in a section. The references on the article provides instructions (against policy), such as how to Access Millions of Hotspots Worldwide with the WiFi Map App". Advertising a company's "hacking app" might be interesting but providing space on Wikipedia for apps (with links and instructions) that can "25 Ethical WiFi Password Hacking Android Apps in 2017" "hack" (an internet guide reference) WiFi (article content: ...it deciphers all the passwords and codes that limit access...), touted as a plus for those with low-end data plans, does not seem like something an encyclopedia should provide. Research indicates there could be reliably sourced content on the subject of WiFi app's (purpose/use, pros, cons, legal issues) but not this advertising/instruction article or this specific app. See: Extra comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Extra comments: There are potential legal ramifications. When an app goes beyond broadcasting Public WiFi hotspots, to arguably stealing "private WiFi", otherwise referred to as “Piggybacking” or "WiFi squatting" and many have likely done this on a neighbors WiFi, but provides the location and passwords of "private" connections, this should be scary to many.
 * A friend can visit, ask permission (legal) to use your WiFi, then post this information (not legal) so others using the app can now use the WiFi which is stealing (unauthorized use) and if this person does not have unlimited WiFi (a lot of us don't) there is a monetary loss, but certainly a breech of privacy. If you look out your window, and see a strange vehicle do not be alarmed, it is just a person checking his/her facebook and not "casing the joint". If you are the person in the vehicle, do not worry (even if you are "casing the joint") just explain to the officer you were just checking your email using this cool app you learned about on Wikipedia (it could happen), apologize and you will just be directed to leave. There are plenty more private connections on the app you can "explore".
 * There have been arrests, litigation, and even corporate lawsuits (Comcast, Google) on the legality of "WiFi squatting" as violating the 1986 federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If you walk or drive down the street and your cell phone (or other tech equipment) hits on an open "hotspot" (intentionally open), this is not considered to be illegal but "IF you know" (your app is seeking out more than "open" WiFi) there can be culpability. At the least you are an accidental criminal. Now we have Wikipedia providing a vehicle to advance this with provided instructions.
 * "IF" consensus decides to keep this instruction manual, it should be reduced to the content of the lead as a stub (there will still be reliable sources issues concerning notability as opposed to advertising) either by consensus or an administrator. Wikipedia can surely (I hope) do better than this. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (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.