Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app)


 * 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 keep. SNOW close. Not a viable nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikidemon (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yo (app)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, even the most casual look at the refs shows extensive third party coverage. If you find the language too promotional, then feel free to edit the entry. It doesn't look blatantly spammy to me. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * press coverage, mashable like references, they can write about anything in general. trivial mention in big media, once in a lifetime thing! wikipedia can not become directory for apps. if they are just apps, not notable till now. it has no time limit, probably in future it can be. right now it is just promotions. even intentions of writing such article is questionable! Light2021 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't true, to the extent to which I can tell what you're saying. For example, the entry references two Guardian articles, both of which are entirely about this company, they are not "mentions". This easily passes the notability guidelines, regardless of what anyone's intentions might have been in creating it. Hairhorn (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (article creator) per the extensive coverage cited in the article. Not written to promote the subject, but in response to said coverage. Here's some more, from more recently, that aren't in the article: . Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As an admin know better than me about these things. No different than Indian Startup like coverage. Getting funded. Covered by media once. Business Insider and Yahoo not even credible for citations. Who write those articles, no one knows? are they even real journalist? Like Indian startup cases: about funding, investors, story script given by none other than company officials for publications as they are funded. and eventually a failure. get money, get press, and fail. good to build the name. For such things wikipedia will become grand host for every funded company who gets even slightest amount from any kind of investors and get coverage instantly. There is nothing wrong with Notable startups. But these are not one of those.


 * Keep based on the sources already on the article.  This is one of many cookie-cutter nominations by the nominator, who sadly has repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend basic wikipedia guidelines and policies when it comes to companies.   It is becoming disruptive.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and here comes the repeated response. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Light2021 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes, it's the Kim Kardashian of software, famous for being famous. But nobody really pretends it was anything other than a stupid joke in the first place, and in that sense it was notable. Blythwood (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you believe it to be promotion, feel free to edit the article to change the prose or tone. Not to mention the fact that your reason is the exact same (word for word) as your last six nominations... I agree with User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR here. TheKaphox   T  21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: this AfD discussion should be ended per WP:Snowball. TheKaphox   T  21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read: Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia is not a newspaper Light2021 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Both links are irrelevant. It is clear from the amount of keep votes that it should be ended per the snowball clause. TheKaphox   T  21:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: sources already in article, as well as those listed above by Samwalton9, indicate that this company meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia essays and Signpost editorials do not negate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and here comes the repeated WP:GNG policy. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia is not a newspaperLight2021 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is significant coverage by reliable sources sufficient to meet the GNG. The nominator's repetitive linking to the same essay and the same Signpost article is not persuasive. Instead, it is irritating and counterproductive. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep going on citing just one thing " WP:GNG" every time for any arguments I see on AfD, is there anything substantial you need to discuss or just Paases or meets WP:GNG, and the discussions are over? It is not even Irritating but useless for discussions for depth analysis. Light2021 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as a relatively inexperienced editor, you misunderstand what we do here at Articles for Deletion. Our job is to evaluate whether or not the topic meets the GNG or the various special notability guidelines. If we agree that the topic meets one of those guidelines, then we keep and improve the article. If we agree that the topic does not meet the guidelines, we delete it. Period. End of story. So, when you criticize other editors for focusing on the GNG, that is like criticizing a chess player for attempting checkmate. It seems illogical to me. Please rethink your approach.Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Yo. North America1000 23:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep going on citing just one thing " WP:GNG" every time for any arguments I see on AfD, is there anything substantial you need to discuss or just Paases or meets WP:GNG, and the discussions are over? It is not even Irritating but useless for discussions for depth analysis. Light2021 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I examined available sources before !voting. The topic meets GNG. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Your remarks do not persuade me to change my !vote. North America1000 04:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done my part, given enough to think or discuss about. If that is what Wiki community decides, I will definitely accept that. But please give discussions not just easily passes GNC remarks. Does not even help me understand what is there to be notable about this one? I have gone through every coverage this company has. Nothing is there. Only press and script given to media for Once in a lifetime coverage. There are no "sustainable coverage". Light2021 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Other editors "Keep going on citing just one thing, WP:GNG, every time" because it is the relevant notability guideline, and at AFD we are charged with assessing an article subject's notability. Articles need to be assessed according to this guideline, so yes, it comes up a lot. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You think and demean my discussions every-time, I will spare my time elsewhere or doing better work. If my ways seems inappropriate to you. I will leave it to others to respond to your discussions. I will not waste my time on your discussions ever now, as you intend to demean others by citing policies and nothing else. No real value is added, but merely commenting on how I am making discussions. Consider it my last response to your comments made on me. I am tired responding to your citing of GNC. Have you read that yourself what that is actually? Wikipedia is not Gossipedia, Newspaper, PR host or any such platform for any of these company pr people. You can make this platform a non-sense piece like any other blogs or so called news is available these days Online. Flooded with articles of non-notability and promotions. For you only The Last Word Light2021 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 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.