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. This is not so clearly irredeemable promotion that speedy deletion is warranted. As such, notability arguments are what matter; and despite the lengthy back and forth, there remain substantive sources that have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qlone[edit]

Qlone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The creator of this article is solely for the promotion of this product. And because of Cross-wiki spam is globally locked. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Internet. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because G5 quick delete does not apply to pages created by users who are only globally locked, but not blocked from the English Wikipedia. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection: Certainly has some qualitative shortcomings, but I do not see the requirements for a deletion met. The references here are quite remarkable and there are also real heavyweights, such as USA Today, BBC, etc. Style can be improved but for me, the article is sufficiently presented. Keep. FlyInTheOintment (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am satisfied that GNG has been met, as SIGCOV can be established following a collective assessment of the linked references Jack4576 (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though the user's intention might be promotional, it is still notable with unquestionable SIGCOV from RS. Please conduct BEFORE before nominations. Timothytyy (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was lead to here after looking at a Reddit account u/QloneApp which is non stop spam of this brand. On one of the links that they are spamming - https://www.qlone.pro/armenu - there is a message at the bottom linking to this page labelled "Trusted by Wikipedia" to give false credence to their product. I thought I'd point this out here; it does look as though this page exists simply to give repute to the product. Apologies if this doesn't belong here, but I thought it might be relevent. LordGnomeMBE (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. However, I respectfully disagree with the significance of your message as the link you provided is a mere standard marketing channel and acting on your personal emotions is plainly not the guideline or threshold. As others point here it provides unquestionable SIGCOV and meets GNG so I still maintain my vote to keep. FlyInTheOintment (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article was finally deleted on zhwiki due to advertising. Although the first creator User:JohnMcClaneSr disclosed the WP:COI, the main purpose of his account is to use Wikipedia to market related products. This user is locked globally due to Cross-wiki Spam.[1] ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) (your AFD nomination counts as your delete vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Strong Keep: Agreed with Jack4576 and Timothy. CastJared (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Objection: Spam through and through, and there is still a lot of advertising on this version, and it hasn't improved in days. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for the benefit of whoever has to close this, it would help if some of those !voting keep could point out maybe just three in-depth and independent articles about this software. Elemimele (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:GNG of this app is met by the USA Today and Gizmodo sources. Because this app received academic attention (see Qlone#Notable uses), WP:SIGCOV is also met. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Maybe it needs cleaning up rather than deletion? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've cut down the article to be more neutral, if it helps at all. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia:Notability is based on the existences of sources, not the state of the article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the latest comment of our IP contributor. The current state of the article doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally not possible to write a non-PROMO encyclopedia article exclusively from PRSOURCEs. With respect to Timothytyy, CastJared and our IP contributor here, I do not see any coverage that is significant, independent, reliable and secondary to the level required to meet our notability guidelines for organisations and companies (and their products). If the Reuters/USA Today and two Gizmodo sources are to be considered our three best sources (and I haven't really found any better), I can't see how any of the extant coverage can be considered SIGCOV. The two Gizmodo articles are essentially various levels of "hey, this thing exists, look at this youtube video they published". What about Reuters? Leaving aside the fact that just having a different person voice about 10 seconds of introduction based on what the CEO says in the next 20 seconds doesn't make that content intellectually independent (amusingly, you can almost hear the audio of the original recording under the voiceover at about 0:26/27), does it provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article? A summary of "this is a 3D scanning app", a brief how to and the fact that the company says there will be an android version soon? Forget CORPDEPTH, that isn't enough to meet SIGCOV requirements for basically any topic. I don't think there are any sources that fail less than two of SIRS, never mind zero. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and by a wide margin. Sources are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TandyTRS80, happy to see new users at AfD but any chance of naming a few of the best ones like our IP user did? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the warm welcome @Alpha3031.

  Sure, from my long tenure in the engineering space, being featured on the BBC Click show is not something you can buy and they only select notable newsworthy tech tools. Same goes for the Apple WWDC event, they only pick notable stories.

  Then you have Reuters, Gizmodo, TechCrunch, these are outstanding playbook independent outlets so if these are not considered GNG, we would need to delete most of Wikipedia. Lastly, as the IP contributor pointed out himself, there is also academic attention to the app and an ESA (European Space Agency) story which all add to real world SIGCOV. TandyTRS80 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying your interpretation here, TandyTRS80 and I do hope you like it enough to stay (both at AfD and WP in general). I was about 260 words into a much longer response before I decided that was going to be too long but, while I agree the BBC/WWDC/ESA are good claims of significance we do actually need direct and detailed coverage to meet the Wikipedia definition of "notability", a somewhat unfortunate choice of words. The requirements of the WP:N guideline essentially derives from our core content policies, we need enough facts to extract in order to write an article without original research, and at least a couple need to be substantive enough (and intellectually as well as editorially independent of the subject) to determine due and undue weight. The "how to" content that make up a lot of the coverage is also excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which details the type of content considered (in)appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reuters would be a good source, and the bulk of their content isn't going to be WP:PRSOURCE, but the specific video has indications of being that (besides being mostly direct quotes as well). TechCrunch has been discussed here before (see WP:TECHCRUNCH) and there are issues (mostly surrounding ORGIND) that prevent it from being used to establish notability. Perhaps our standards are too strict, but it's a compromise. Especially with commercial orgs and products, content that would be WP:NOT tends to be added without the strict requirements in WP:CORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for sharing your detailed response @Alpha3031 and I truly appreciate your extensive experience and adherence to the WP guidelines. I’m indeed new here but as mentioned I have a strong background in the knowledge of tech and its marketing which is why I decided to contribute from my experience to try and make WP better. Let’s continue in good faith this discussion for the benefit of everyone since I feel this is a case which requires considerable debate due to its strong set of sources which I just went over again and did another extensive WP:BEFORE. The WWDC event is held once a year and has a Wiki article by itself due to its huge exposure in all worldwide media (see last night’s Vision Pro announcement for example) and they rarely showcase an app unless its unusually notable. I just watched the videos in the Article and they extensively show and discuss the subject along with mentioning Unity and Cinema4D next to it, both also have a strong Wiki presence. So I think it is by itself a significant source of WP:N. Then you have the BBC which extensively covered the subject in a neutral way in their tech show about Artificial Intelligence and their standard requires that if its a paid or promotional exposure it cannot be part of the show or at least to mention that since they must adhere to their ethics code standard. Same goes for Reuters which I can only assume found the app in that trade show event and decided to cover it due to their thinking its highly notable and they also didn’t mention it was promotional as required from their standards. Then you have the ESA which describes one of the most beautiful use cases mentioned in the article - scanning rocks for Mars mission and they picked this app as their tool which is a very strong indication to its importance and lastly, from an Academia standpoint, you have a growing number of articles and citations such as these:

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356423862_QloneR_A_Simple_Method_to_Create_360-Degree_Photogrammetry-Based_3-Dimensional_Model_of_Cadaveric_Specimens

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332504237_CAN_AN_INEXPENSIVE_PHONE_APP_COMPARE_TO_OTHER_METHODS_WHEN_IT_COMES_TO_3D_DIGITIZATION_OF_SHIP_MODELS

  https://www.cureus.com/articles/125929-virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality-in-anatomy-education-during-covid-19-pandemic#!/

  And here’s another recent one from the NSTA (National Science Teaching Association):

  https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-november-december-2022/low-cost-user-friendly

  I apologize for making this long response but I am beyond doubt it belong in WP and if you look at my recent track record on AfD you will see that I am not easily conveyed and I try to keep the strict guidelines as everyone should. If I felt I was wrong I would gladly change my mind which is only human. Thank you for your civilized discussion. TandyTRS80 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agreeing with Alpha3031. USA Today cite goes to a "Video provided by Reuters", so who really did it? In my other spot checks I'm seeing a few more promotional videos at Apple and Youtube, and a blog. In my web searches, I see mostly self-published stuff. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Went through all the refs in the article and none of them would qualify as SIGCOV on the product from a quality independent RS. There have been no other RS presented at this AfD. I did a WP:BEFORE, and found nothing that would prove GNG. I don't think another relist is going to change this situation. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this to a Keep based on the journal sources provided above, including: [2] and [3]; having read them, it is also possible that this product's notability could improve further so a keep now for me. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's enough in-depth coverage in technical journals already referenced in the article to easily meet GNG. I have looked closely at 2 of the 34 references, and improved the links in the article to these 2 sources.

The 7-page article (ref 27) in the peer-reviewed Operative Neurosurgery (reference is excellent, referencing Qlone a dozen times); a rare (and positive) comment was even made in a follow-up issue of the journal.

The 6-page conference proceedings (ref 30) from the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing is also excellent, mentioning Qlone no less than Forty times!!

I haven't reviewed the other 32 references, but can User:Fumikas Sagisavas withdraw this AFD? I don't understand how User:Alpha3031, User:Yae4, and User talk:Aszx5000 didn't find any GNG references or SIGCOV. Nfitz (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I can't withdraw it for the time being. You need to verify all the 37 sources, which ones are valid introductions, which ones are just passing by, and which ones are self-promotion. In addition, the above-mentioned people do feel like they were mobilized to vote, but I have no evidence that they constitute a MEAT relationship.

If you want to keep it, just stub it, and you may need to clean up many unnecessary sources, just have a few to form an effective introduction. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verify 30+ sources? That's not how AFD works, User:Fumikas Sagisavas. If there's a couple of reliable sources, then it's a keep, or the content is moved somewhere - like EyeCue Vision Technologies. And in nearly 2 decades at AFD, I have never seen such good sources as the two I listed - two very in-depth academic papers. I don't know how you didn't see them when you did a BEFORE - given they were already in the article ... and they are quickly coming up in Proquest and Wikipedia Library as well - among other stuff. If two of the references meet GNG, for the purposes of AFD, the other 30+ are irrelevant. If the article needs cleaning it up - then you can do so. Remember that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you have no issues with those 2 references I discussed (or do you?), you should at least put in a keep vote; withdrawing is technically difficult with the 3 delete votes. Nfitz (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3REFS, please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, reliable and independent coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two is more than sufficient when the references are such high quality; but there's more. I see that User:TandyTRS8 lists 2 other Sources above - the NSTA article is particularly good. However User:Yae4, the third-best one I've come across (and I'm finding this by doing my own BEFORE and then finding they are already referenced in the article) is reference 33 - the 8-page paper in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Anatomy; I'll improve the links to that reference in the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nfitz, I had not written anything about the journal articles as consistent with GNG and CORP (which is generally applied to products) primary research, even if they are independent, are generally considered less useful in establishing notability. Since it has been brought up though, I will write something re. depth of coverage also once I reach a computer. eventually, assuming this discussion doesn't close before then, not that I expect it to make much difference. The Operative Neurosurgery article I do not consider to have meaningful coverage even discounting primary/secondary, and ISPRS is a solid maybe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) amended 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioning" or "referencing" is not necessarily "in depth" or "significant" coverage, but I agree that conference report is one example of significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article in a peer-reviewed technical journal - with a positive follow-up comment by others, is not primary. But if there are concerns, see reference 33, which I mention in my response above. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (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.