Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WireDoo


 * 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   merge to MC Hammer. Consensus is to merge - Deleting and Redirecting to existing info in host article ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WireDoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A famous person announcing their intention to do something does not establish notability. We generally don't write about things that are in the planning stages but don't exist yet, because many never materialize.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep Merge per Alphius - I agree that it is weak, in alpha stage, not open to the public, and may never come to fruition, but when CNN and the LA Times cover it and do so in a significant way, it seems to be notable.  Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the news. This is just routine coverage of an announcement of an upcoming product. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to MC Hammer. This has 2 reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is speculative, and there's no significant claim to notability. The CNN coverage is minimal. The LA Times blog is mostly quoting Hammer, so it is not a source that is independent of WireDoo. Where the blog exercises its own judgment, it is skeptical that WireDoo will succeed, so it is not suggesting notability. Celebrity endorsements do not make companies notable. Glrx (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With two reliable sources, even if we felt it wasn't notable enough for a stand alone article, wouldn't we normally merge the content somewhere rather than delete? Even with the quoting of Hammer, the LA Times still felt it was important enough to dedicate some space for the article, as did CNN.  As I stated, it is weak, but I can't see an outright deletion as the best solution.  At least with merge and redirect, if someone looked for the term, they would find something in the MC Hammer article.  That seems like a reasonable compromise, and the article can be recreated when and if it clearly passes WP:GNG.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)
 * This article, which is only three sentences, isn't hard to recreate and should be deleted. The issue is not a reliable publisher but rather independent, reliable, secondary sources; there are none. Although it could be redirected/merged into MC Hammer, I voted for a straight delete because it's too early for WP to worry about WireDoo. As mentioned by Alphius, the MC Hammer article already mentions WireDoo. If somebody wants to copy a missing source to MC Hammer, that would be fine, but I wouldn't mention WireDoo even at MC Hammer. (It's there, and I won't disturb it.) My sense is that WireDoo doesn't have enough weight. I don't consider Hammer a prominent voice in search engines; even if he were, he would only be one prominent proponent. I want critical notice of WireDoo -- not star-struck notice of its investor or promoter. The web has other sources such as CBS News, but none of them claim to have tried a search on WireDoo. Who are the actual developers? Hammer's vague co-founders? Management team? Financing? Serious business reporting would ask. At this point, WireDoo is just what its marketing has fed us. What is "deep search" and "relationship search"? Are we sure that Google/Bing/Yahoo cannot trivially add it? Or that users even want the features? WP should wait for sources that actually kick the tires or provide some significant insight instead of simply replaying Hammer's sound track. Glrx (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to MC Hammer. There is already a sentence about it on the article about him, using one of the sources here. The part about WireDoo in his article could just be slightly expanded and the other source could be added. This page could be redirected to MC Hammer until there is more information. Alphius (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2012 (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.