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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICurrency Plus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy because the article claims notability as the first currency tracker that sends push notifications to the iPhone. However it is unsourced and very promotional in nature - just not enough to be speedied. Please note that the author is also the product developer. Community can decide. JodyB_talk 11:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a very notable iPhone app, not much significant coverage found on Google, and what there is is really a lot of the same material copied on different sites. fetchcomms☛ 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am the writer of the page and the main developer of the app, so I will try to be neutral. This application is the first currency tracker application in the iPhone platform that sends push notifications of notable changes in the currencies of your choice to the end user, customized by the currency pairs that the user tracks (no other currency application send push notifications). While the only way to proof this statement is by showing that all other applications in the app store do not meet this functionality, you will understand I can not do this in Wikipedia. I can however, put references to very noticeable sites that decided to publish the press release (including very reputable sites like macrumors.com) where they confirmed that this is the only application that does it. Of course they will all look the same since it is a press release sent to a few sites that decided to republish it to their partners, so by just sending to the main top 10 sites you get more than 300 sites coverage, but with exactly the same or very similar text.

The application has other majors features not included in other currency applications: automatically set some pairs based in your location, flexible customization of the initial view so you can compare the same price in the past, simple interface, nice graphs to easily see trends ... but all of those are more difficult to proof and not as noticeable as the push notifications. So I am not planning to focus on those.

I have reviews and interviews in other major sites in the pipeline, but I am putting them on hold until a new version of the app is released which we schedule to do very soon. I can and I will put these references in the articles if you decide to let it continue in Wikipedia. The reason why I have not done it earlier is because I knew that I will be in this situation based on my more than three years experience in Wikipedia. Since I wrote the article however, I was putting together the list of noticeable sites that reference the application as well a brand new way of explaining what the apps does and how to help developers using similar techniques based on all the experience I accumulated while developing and maintaining the application. I will do all of that only if the article stays, at least on probation.

I have been long enough in Wikipedia to know how it works, so I am not planning to call my friends and ask them to vote in my favor, I will really leave it to you guys to decide. I believe that the person that suggest a speed deletion has a second agenda and I am sure he/she will bring a lot of people to vote against. If you believe that this article or the application is not noticeable enough to be included in Wikipedia, I encourage you to look for iPhone applications pages that has been way longer than this one and ask yourself why have they last so long and mine is been for just a few days and someone already suggested a speed deletion.Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last notice, since I just updated myself as well, searching in Google for exactly "icurrency plus" returns more than 6000 pages making reference to it. Not that it is important, but it should mean something. Please note that I am searching for the exact phrase, this list do not include "currency" or "plus" references. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say, "I have reviews and interviews in other major sites in the pipeline, but I am putting them on hold until a new version of the app is released". If you have the power to delay publication of these reviews then they can't be independent. The type of sources that we require are those that don't give the developer of a product a veto over publication. I would suggest that you wait for truly independent reviews to be published, i.e. those over which you have no influence, and only then create a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those publications you are referring to as "independendant", they do exists and I can collect them by searching Google for sure. What I meant is request for interviews about the app that I have put on hold until the next version is launched. Of course I understand those are not that important. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've spent about half an hour looking through the Google web search results (there's nothing on Google News) and can't find anything remotely resembling an independent reliable source. I would suggest to Mr Mateo that if, as he says, he knows of any such sources he identifies them in the next few days, as that is the only way that there is any chance that this article will be kept. I would also suggest not making paranoid accusations of anyone having a "second agenda" and assumptions that the nominator will try any vote-stacking. That sort of childish behaviour can only serve to make people question your own motives for creating this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you are right, and I should apologize for that. It is just "interesting" that a user that has very little contributions to Wikipedia nominated this article for "speedy deletion", without any other trial to the article. That is the only reason why we are in this situation now. I encourage you and all others to look at articles in the categories Mobile Software or iPhone OS Software, there are a lot of stubs there way more questionable (and I do agree they should be kept but enhanced, never removed). I can bring all the sources, no question about it, but I do not want to spend hours do that if the article will be removed anyway. One point to notice, the application was launched less than two months ago, it would be impossible to find anything in Google Scholar or Google Books about it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are getting this the wrong way round. You first need to provide sources, and then, if they meet our guidelines, the article will be kept, not "removed anyway". Your stubborn refusal to provide the sources that you say exist is what will lead to it being removed. Why, if you already know of such sources, will it take you hours to tell us about them? If they are online just give us the URLs, and if they are in print media give us the publication names, dates, pages and article titles. That will take minutes, not hours. We all know that there are plenty of other articles that don't meet our guidelines, but this discussion is about this article, not those others, so please concentrate on showing how this subject meets our guidelines. Any other articles that may not meet guidelines can be discussed separately - the instructions for starting such discussions are at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. This is just a quick list of "independant publications", some of them are just short comments, some are full reviews, some are in other languages, some re-use portions of the press release, some I had to take them from the catched pages at Google since they were news and they no longer exists in the original site. I had no control as requested over these publications or sites. I have excluded blogs (although independant) and any other site (including important ones) that just copy/pasted the press release:

I meant by hours to consolidate this list and put all those comments in the article (which I intend to do if an only if the article survives this AfD). Please notice my frustration, that this is definitely the first app of its kind in the app store as recognize by a lot of sites, still we are talking about removing the article. I did not get a comment in the article "This article requires sources", what I got was "A speedy deletion notice" that thankfully was removed by an admin and put the article in this process instead. I will try to cooperate, I just can not believe yet that we are here at this point, nothing else. My frustratino should not be against you guys that are trying to do the right thing. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of formatting that list to allow for easier review. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are either independent or reliable, all being sites that accept user submissions, and they are just pretty much exact copies of the same text. The fact that many include the wording "promo codes are available for qualified reviewers" shows that this is, pure and simply, spam, and your attempt to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes can only reflect badly on you, as this discussion will probably be near the top of any web searches for "ICurrency Plus" for years to come. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE: you all have been very helpful, honestly I do not have the strength to fight for this, there are so many articles in Wikipedia, not remarkable at all, and they all get "this article require sources" tag, sometime for years, mine got a "speed deletion" tag instead, from a user that has very little contribution to Wikipedia, so you guess then how i feel ... if people believe that I am doing this to get free promotion (which I can show that I have not got one single reference from Wikipedia to my site) and they want to remove the article "because this is the right thing to do" then so be it. I have very reliable sources like [[1]] and [[2]], but they "cannot be considered" since they are basically the press release. For an interview or independent review you have to pay money for it. To me does not make sense that I need to pay money just to be included in Wikipedia ... what is it important to me is that this is definitely the first app in the apple store that sends customized push notifications about important price and performance changes in the currencies of your choice, in more than 200 currency application no other does this; that is noticeable enough, but you are deciding to remove the article because I cannot prove it to you in the terms you want. None of the iPhone OS articles in Wikipedia meets the criteria described here. Please note once again, I never got "this article requires to be improved" instead I got "this article needs to be removed". But once again, thanks, honestly! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: just to my understanding, why is this not reliable? [Italian Review]. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising. The entire article is a features list done up as a tutorial. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMHO this likely is notable but clean-up and sourcing are concurrent issues that have to be addressed. I found this which seems to be more parroting a press release but using that you likely could find the press release and use it as a primary source. Likewise with pulling interesting information from their Facebook page. The issue remains that this product is likely too new. Has it been discussed on the business morning shows? In trade publications that are online and geared toward those in the stock markets? Those would be credible as much as a shout out on Oprah. It confirms that the product is notable enough to meet our present guidelines. As a suggestion Miguel.mateo, if there are not, yet at least, independent coverage in reliable sources you might want to halt this current deletion discussion and agree either userfy it or send it to incubation for more work adding reliable sources as they are found. Absent those Wikipedia is just not well equipped to address products that don't obviously have plenty of good sources readily available. Additionally every company, band and marketer wants to promote their item(s) so the culture on Wikipedia is to not be terribly trusting of items in those areas unless it's obvious that they are notable. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more try to give some more information:

The original source of the press release: http://prmac.com/release-id-11020-search-icurrency+plus.htm (it was sent to other sites too but this was the main distributor to secondary sites)
The same press release in honest and really reliable sites (they do not publish anyone, there are others which I could not find, but with patience in front of Google they will show like macrumors.com and appleinsider.com):

Independent source and review one: http://iphoneapp.splinder.com/post/22249348/iCurrency+Plus (in italian)
Independent source and review two: http://dvdprime.dreamwiz.com/bbs/view.asp?major=ME&minor=E1&master_id=178&bbslist_id=1667129 (in Korean)
Independent source and review three: http://offree.net/3039 (The Korean text)
Independent source and review four: http://www.macnews.com/content/iphoneipodipad-apps-feb-26

Official sources one: http://limitedsecurities.com
Official sources two: http://www.facebook.com/icurrencyplus
Official sources three: http://icurrencyplus.wordpress.com/
Official sources four: http://twitter.com/icurrencyplus

I hope it helps, regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2010 (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.