| Revision as of 17:44, 24 December 2024 editAstaire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users771 edits →Appin (company)← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:09, 28 December 2024 edit undoRunmastery (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users660 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | ||
| * '''Keep''' per ], which clearly shows the article meets ]. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. ] (]) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' per ], which clearly shows the article meets ]. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. ] (]) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ] lists for the following topics: ] and ]. ''']''' ] ] 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Keep''' as it clearly meets ] with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.{{pb}}I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @] and @] took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep:''' "Delete according to ]" is total nonsense. Per ], in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that ] is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. ] (]) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete''' or an article renaming, such as ''Appin hacking....''. According to the delete nominator, I agree that this article is not informative, considering that the company is no longer active.--] (]) 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per ], ] and failing ]. This company is only known for the single event of a legal challenge by its founders against Reuters which published an article the company founders deemed defamatory. There was no media notice of the company before the suit and certainly there will be no further media coverage of the company when the litigation ends as the company is now defunct. Though the sources in the article are ], most are tertiary sources reporting from the Reuters report not their own original reporting and cannot be substantially relied upon per WP: Tertiary Sources. | |||
| This also appears to breach ] which states that “''It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline''”. The company would have zero notability if the sources arising from the alleged hacking operation are taken out. I will change my vote if sources that demonstrate that the company meets ] or ] without the use of the sources from the single event of the court case. ] (]) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:09, 28 December 2024
Appin (company)
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Appin (company) (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)
Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I verified that the first deletion was met with a string of blocks, which is why decided to send an initial message to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, following which agreed to initiate these discussions directly.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - As article creator; company clearly meets WP:GNG. If nom has WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV concerns, could those get discussed on the talk page before going to AfD? If there are WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV issues on an article for a notable subject, the remedy is to address the issues on the page, not delete. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which editors percisely are you calling possible WP:SOCKs? Regardless, even if you're right, can't we just remove whatever content they've added? NickCT (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous AfD, which clearly shows the article meets WP:NORG. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as it clearly meets WP:NORG with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @NoWarNoPeace and @John Bukka took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tristancr (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: "Delete according to WP: ATTACK" is total nonsense. Per WP: ATTACK, in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that WP: GNG is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or an article renaming, such as Appin hacking..... According to the delete nominator, I agree that this article is not informative, considering that the company is no longer active.--Bexaendos (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ONE EVENT, Illegal conduct and failing WP:NORG. This company is only known for the single event of a legal challenge by its founders against Reuters which published an article the company founders deemed defamatory. There was no media notice of the company before the suit and certainly there will be no further media coverage of the company when the litigation ends as the company is now defunct. Though the sources in the article are WP:RS, most are tertiary sources reporting from the Reuters report not their own original reporting and cannot be substantially relied upon per WP: Tertiary Sources.
This also appears to breach WP: Illegal Conduct which states that “It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline”. The company would have zero notability if the sources arising from the alleged hacking operation are taken out. I will change my vote if sources that demonstrate that the company meets WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC without the use of the sources from the single event of the court case. Runmastery (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: