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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfish (software)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Angelfish (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urchin Software Corporation

no indication of WP:notability. Disputed prod. Since the prod, a couple of references have been added - A story about Google Urchin that mentions it as an alternative and a Spanish blog post. Google searches are not showing much better sources available. Some google groups coverage, some blog coverage and some directory type listings. No significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and for reasons stated in the AfD. Tyros1972 Talk 17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not shown as notable (WP:PRODUCT). User226 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like notable software to me - the WHIR reference is legit. Ooni (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Onni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Its not significant coverage - its just a quote from the company tagged on to a story about google urchin. noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry and discussion about it collapsed
Keep How many sources are needed? Other pages have been created with fewer than 3. Hunter1081 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Hunter1081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] It's not the quantity but the quality of the sources. They need to show that it is WP:notable, not just that it exists. In this case, the sources are a story about something else which mentions this and has a quote from the company, a Spanish blog (blogs are not normally considered WP:reliable sources), and a link to the company's own website. noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is legit (and actively developed) software, there's no reason to delete the article. Nambrosch (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Nambrosch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] What is the reason to keep it? noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] And a quick question. What has prompted you and the previous "keep" editor to make your first edit here? noq (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Very "strange" that 2 new editors are the only votes for "keep". This should be looked into. Tyros1972 Talk 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep Agree there's no reason to delete the article. Angelfish was developed by an ex-Urchin, ex-Google guy and it's a good thing for Urchin users to know about, since millions of them are now without an upgrade path otherwise. impunity 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Impunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Wikipedia is not meant to promote goods and services - they need to be notable first, not brought to notability by Wikipedia. And is there someone pointing to this discussion and asking you to come and !vote here? noq (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Just because it's made by an "ex Google employee" it does not mean it's made by "google'! There's not any RS on this. The software is not notable and the article is created to promote and advertise. But it looks like even the editors are misunderstanding this these days and if we are not careful wiki can be damaged. Tyros1972 Talk 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment Bogus Voters impunity is the cofounder of Urchin Software Corp. (predecessor to Google Analytics). His vote is irreverent as he has a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. Ooniis the creator of the article, he also has a conflict of interest and his vote is irrelevant, and finally Hunter1081 & Nambrosch just happened to register today just to cast their "keep" vote. So far we have 2 Delete, the rest are either irrelevant or "questionable". I've asked someone to look into this. Tyros1972 Talk 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Just a mention for the new users here. The AfD is not a vote on if an article is kept. If your comment is not based in the guidelines of Wikipedia accompanied by a valid argument, then they will be ignored. There is no reason to have a bunch of accounts vote Keep unless they present a good argument based in the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Simple votes are ignored. User226 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - While I don't mind being called "irreverent", I certainly have no conflict of interest, just a subject I'm interested in and where I have some domain expertise. Urchin was used by most large US web hosting companies and is now gone; this is a reasonable alternative for them and their millions of users. If you want to pretend Wikipedia is all pure and doesn't promote anything while being informative, be my guest, but there's no reason to be all prickly and pedantic about. User226 is correct that I don't know all the Wikipedia guidelines, and from this perspective, they seem pretty arbitrary. impunity 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] I do not believe User:Tyros1972 mean to call you "irreverent". It was most probably meant to me "irrelevant" and was a typo. Votes from people closely connected to a topic are sometimes weighed less than others to prevent conflicts of interest or point of view problems. Also, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that don't appear to abide by our guidelines. Part of the issue is so many groups trying to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotional purposes. Sometimes these articles slip through the cracks or editors are hoping they will be improved before nominating them for deletion. It is also not a justification to keep an article that does not meet guidelines. User226 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] The entire lot of socks/meatpuppets have been blocked and this page has been semi-protected to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry and discussion about it collapsed

Keep How many sources are needed? Other pages have been created with fewer than 3. Hunter1081 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Hunter1081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not the quantity but the quality of the sources. They need to show that it is WP:notable, not just that it exists. In this case, the sources are a story about something else which mentions this and has a quote from the company, a Spanish blog (blogs are not normally considered WP:reliable sources), and a link to the company's own website. noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is legit (and actively developed) software, there's no reason to delete the article. Nambrosch (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Nambrosch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What is the reason to keep it? noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick question. What has prompted you and the previous "keep" editor to make your first edit here? noq (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very "strange" that 2 new editors are the only votes for "keep". This should be looked into. Tyros1972 Talk 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree there's no reason to delete the article. Angelfish was developed by an ex-Urchin, ex-Google guy and it's a good thing for Urchin users to know about, since millions of them are now without an upgrade path otherwise. impunity 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Impunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not meant to promote goods and services - they need to be notable first, not brought to notability by Wikipedia. And is there someone pointing to this discussion and asking you to come and !vote here? noq (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because it's made by an "ex Google employee" it does not mean it's made by "google'! There's not any RS on this. The software is not notable and the article is created to promote and advertise. But it looks like even the editors are misunderstanding this these days and if we are not careful wiki can be damaged. Tyros1972 Talk 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bogus Voters impunity is the cofounder of Urchin Software Corp. (predecessor to Google Analytics). His vote is irreverent as he has a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. Ooniis the creator of the article, he also has a conflict of interest and his vote is irrelevant, and finally Hunter1081 & Nambrosch just happened to register today just to cast their "keep" vote. So far we have 2 Delete, the rest are either irrelevant or "questionable". I've asked someone to look into this. Tyros1972 Talk 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a mention for the new users here. The AfD is not a vote on if an article is kept. If your comment is not based in the guidelines of Wikipedia accompanied by a valid argument, then they will be ignored. There is no reason to have a bunch of accounts vote Keep unless they present a good argument based in the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Simple votes are ignored. User226 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I don't mind being called "irreverent", I certainly have no conflict of interest, just a subject I'm interested in and where I have some domain expertise. Urchin was used by most large US web hosting companies and is now gone; this is a reasonable alternative for them and their millions of users. If you want to pretend Wikipedia is all pure and doesn't promote anything while being informative, be my guest, but there's no reason to be all prickly and pedantic about. User226 is correct that I don't know all the Wikipedia guidelines, and from this perspective, they seem pretty arbitrary. impunity 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe User:Tyros1972 mean to call you "irreverent". It was most probably meant to me "irrelevant" and was a typo. Votes from people closely connected to a topic are sometimes weighed less than others to prevent conflicts of interest or point of view problems. Also, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that don't appear to abide by our guidelines. Part of the issue is so many groups trying to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotional purposes. Sometimes these articles slip through the cracks or editors are hoping they will be improved before nominating them for deletion. It is also not a justification to keep an article that does not meet guidelines. User226 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire lot of socks/meatpuppets have been blocked and this page has been semi-protected to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources and no demonstration of notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.