Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:33, 1 January 2025

Nomad (app)

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!

Nomad (app) (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 app seems to have no notability and what appears to be a bogus link to another company, with no reliable sources confirming it. The sources provided with mentions of the Nomad app appear to be promotional in nature and therefore I believe that this article should be deleted. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 12:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

KEEP - Not sure what exactly the Nominator means by bogus link to another company. If he means their website URL is not them, then he is wrong. There is a link to their website from Apple here and also Aljazeera, so there is nothing bogus about it. Here are a list of sources that confirm they are notable: NY Times has a good coverage on them, Wall Street Journal has coverage on them, CNBC has selected them as one of 9 best eSIM cards and has a good amount of info on them, techradar has a great lengthy review on them and Drift Travel has a review on them. There are several others, but I believe these are enough to show notability.

I also think this nominator may not have enough experience yet to be doing deletion nominations, seeing that his account was only created about 15 days ago at the time of nomination. Maybe he should hold off doing nominations, until he is more experienced. I will be checking some of his other edits/nominations (if any) and if I find any issues, I'll report him to the admins.Jasonswat (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

DELETE ADDITIONAL COMMENT— In regards to the “bogus link to another company” comment that I made, allow me to explain. In the history section of the article, there is a mention of the app being “a business line of LotusFlare, Inc., a company founded by former Facebook and Microsoft engineers”. What I meant is that the fact the company (Nomad) is owned by another company which was founded by former engineers of well-known companies is being used as a way to make Nomad appear more notable. A company does not automatically become notable because of their parent company or the founders of the parent company it belongs to.

The article itself fails to demonstrate that Nomad, meets WP:GNG. To be notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the app is mentioned in several sources, the coverage appears to be brief or trivial. Many of the references in the article (e.g: TechRadar, Mashable, PCMag) are general roundups or listicles of "best eSIMs for travel," where Nomad is briefly mentioned without substantial analysis or focus.

The sources cited (e.g: New York Times, Wall Street Journal) mention Nomad in the context of eSIM technology, but these mentions do not provide significant coverage focused on Nomad itself. The app itself does not appear to offer any groundbreaking technology or features that distinguishes it significantly from competitors. The services it provides (e.g: mobile data plans for international travelers, regional eSIM plans) are common in the eSIM industry and are offered by many similar companies. As a result, the subject does not appear to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to the broader field of eSIM or telecommunications technology.

While the app is noted for its use during communication blackouts in Gaza, the mention is trivial and not well-supported by significant independent coverage. This does not elevate the app to notability in terms of enduring or widespread coverage.

Some other sources, like Mashable and TechRadar, appear to be affiliate or promotional content, which is discouraged under Misplaced Pages's guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article includes promotional language, such as descriptions of Nomad’s features and services, without critical or analytical discussion. Phrases like "Nomad eSIMs take the tension out of international data travel" (sourced from Mashable) and the inclusion of extensive product details suggest that the article may serve more as an advertisement than as a neutral encyclopedia entry.

On your last point. I appreciate your concern that you believe I may be an inexperienced editor. We all start from somewhere. However, threatening to report me to the administrators is not appropriate. If you find something worthy of the administrator team's attention, by all means make them aware but please don't use that as a way to discourage myself or other editors to make contributions to Misplaced Pages. I have seen editors who have been here for years who are clueless about so much and I have seen other editors who know so much in a short period of time because of their genuine interest.

Time on Misplaced Pages does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable; knowledge makes someone knowledgeable. I hope we can now stay on-topic.

Nyxion303 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You cannot post additional Delete votes as a nominator as your nomination is already considered a delete vote, but welcome to post comments. You are welcome to your opinion, but I vastly disagree with your point of view. the NY Times had a good amount of coverage on them and it is one of the biggest publications. Yes they are one of many eSIM companies out there, but consistently ranked as one of the Top 10 on multiple publications. I did notice that some publications may have Amazon or affiliate links, but I have tried to avoid the ones hat have not actually performed an independent testing, so that way we can have honest reviews. As you know almost all publications make money from advertisements and affiliate links, that does not mean they are not reliable. For example CNBC describes their methodology on how they selected their top 9 list here. Drift Travel has no affiliate links and did a 9 paragraph review on them. PC Mag also has a review here and as their website the test all products that are reviewed.

Also, the fact that the founders were ex-Facebook employees is only part of their history, information commonly posted about founders on all company pages. To accuse someone of intentionally inserting that to make them notable is ridiculous. This is why I say you are not experienced enough to be nominating pages for deletion. You should refrain from further nominations until you have more experience.Jasonswat (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again, Jason, for taking the time to reply. Regarding the sources you’ve provided, I’d like to respectfully disagree with your assessment of their significance under Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. While, yes, New York Times is a reputable publication, its mention of Nomad is brief and part of a broader discussion about eSIM technology. This does not constitute significant, in-depth coverage of the app itself as required by WP:GNG. Similarly, while the Wall Street Journal and other sources, such as PCMag and Drift Travel, provide reviews or mentions of Nomad, these mentions are primarily product-focused or listicles (as I mentioned in one of my previous comments) and do not analyze the app's unique impact or significance within its field. Lists like the one from CNBC, even with a stated methodology, are still curated recommendations rather than comprehensive, independent evaluations of the app’s notability. In the case of PCMag, anyone reading that will see it for what it is; a promotional piece.

Regarding the information about the founders, I want to clarify that I am not accusing anyone of intentionally inserting this detail to fabricate notability. The point is that a company's association with founders who used to be ex-employees of a known company or a parent company which in its own right may be notable does not automatically make its child-company also notable. This is a common misunderstanding, and the emphasis should remain on whether the subject itself (Nomad, in this case) meets Misplaced Pages’s notability standards independently — in this case, I'm afraid, it simply does not.

Lastly, once again, I understand your concerns about my experience level as an editor. While I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, I have taken great care to familiarise myself with the relevant policies and guidelines, including those regarding notability. Constructive contributions on WP and adherence to policy are not exclusive to editors who have been here for years. Yourself, for example, only created your own account mere days before I did, however, I have not pointed that out for the simple reason that it is not relevant to the discussion about the deletion of the article and off-topic. I believe we should focus on the content and merits of this discussion rather than making assumptions about an editor's capabilities based on their time on the platform.

Nyxion303 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

KEEP - I have reservations about the nominator's claim that it has no notability. According to my research, this app has been downloaded over 100,000 times on the Google Play Store and is ranked in the top 100 travel apps on the App Store. In addition, data from Similarweb shows that the average monthly visits to this website is around 600,000. So I think it has notability. Howiezhao (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

DELETE — ADDITIONAL COMMENT— Thank you for your input. I appreciate you writing here and for sharing the statistics. Now, while the stats about the number of app downloads, app ranking and website traffic may indicate some level of popularity, they do not in themselves satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability criteria (WP:GNG). To address each of your claim separately:

(1): Download numbers and rankings don't establish notability. Misplaced Pages evaluates notability based on independent, significant, and reliable secondary sources (WP:GNG). Stats like app downloads (100,000+) or rankings on app stores (e.g: top 100 travel apps) are primary data and metrics provided by platforms like the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store. These metrics reflect usage but don't actually equate to significant independent coverage by reliable sources that analyse or report on the app's impact, innovation, or even its significance. Popularity alone is insufficient to meet notability standards, as noted underWP:POPULARITY.

(2): A website's traffic does not, also, prove its notability. Data shared from Similarweb, such as 600,000 monthly visits (only 30% of which is organic according to the same site), is similarly a measure of popularity or activity like the one shared about app downloads. It does not substitute for independent and in-depth coverage about the app itself. High traffic numbers or app activity do not inherently demonstrate the subject's encyclopedic value or warrant a standalone article unless supported by secondary sources discussing why the app is notable (WP:NWEB).

To put simply, the app has a lack of substantial independent coverage and the article primarily relies on brief mentions in the sources provided that list the app alongside competitors or other promotional-style mentions (please see my previous response for an in-depth comment on this). These sources do not provide significant, in-depth coverage that would meet the threshold for WP:GNG for a standalone article. The author may, should he wish, to edit the parent company's Misplaced Pages article and mention Nomad under one of the company's child which I think may be a suitable compromise.

There is one more thing that I would like to mention without making any assumptions. Your account is 8 years old and has made only one contribution to Misplaced Pages (Special:Contributions/Howiezhao); it is the one asking for this article to remain on Misplaced Pages. It does raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest (WP:COI) or the account being used as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA). While having an old account with no contributions is not inherently a problem, the fact that the account’s sole contribution in 8 years is to advocate for keeping a specific article does appear, well, suspicious. It may seem as though the account is being used solely to influence the outcome of the deletion discussion. Others may see it differently. Nyxion303 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This might be due to lack of your knowledge with Misplaced Pages, as you were not able to figure out that the guy has almost 100 edits in other Wikis such as Wikidata and Chinese Misplaced Pages. Check this link: Special:CentralAuth/Howiezhao. Either that or you are purposely trying to downplay his status to make him look like he was not qualified for voting. Although I do agree that per Misplaced Pages policies download stats are not to be considered for notability. Jasonswat (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that @Howiezhao has contributions on other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikidata and the Chinese Misplaced Pages. Now, while I appreciate you sharing this, I believe my initial concerns about the account’s activity in relation to this discussion remain valid.

While the account has 108 contributions across Wikidata and Chinese Misplaced Pages, nearly all of these edits appear to have occurred before 2019 — over six years ago. To add to that, it is also Howiezhao’s very first edit on the English Misplaced Pages. It is very unusual for an account with no prior activity on any wikis at all for such a long period of time, none in the English Misplaced Pages since their account creation, to suddenly participate in a deletion discussion, raising questions about whether the account may be acting as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA) in this instance.

To be clear, my concern is not to “downplay” their contributions to other Wikimedia projects, but rather to highlight the possibility of a WP:COI or coordinated effort to influence the outcome of this deletion discussion. This is particularly relevant given the timing and context of their participation, coupled with the lack of any activity on other wikis as well for the last six years.

Ultimately, the focus of this discussion should remain on whether the article meets Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria, specifically WP:GNG. I hope we can avoid distractions and continue working towards a consensus based on policy and guidelines. Again, I thank you for pointing this out, and I welcome further discussion. Nyxion303 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor Jasonswat said, I have over 100 edits in other wikis. I happened to be looking for this company Nomad and I noticed that it was being deleted, so I decided to post a vote. There is nothing suspicious and I do not have a conflict of interest. It is the first time I am posting a vote, so I had to research the format a little bit. I am sorry that I was not aware that downloads and such things do not count towards notability. Further checking on what counts towards notability, I agree with the editor Jasonswat, that there are several publications which have significant coverage on NOMAD, hence the company qualifies. Howiezhao (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Seems suspicious that, while this user has made edits on other wikis, this vote is their first edit on enwiki. ~Darth Stabro 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: coverage in CNBC, NY Times, Tech Radar and others shows that they are notable to get such coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. While it’s true that being mentioned those publications can suggest a certain level of visibility or recognition, it’s important to evaluate the nature and depth of that said-coverage per WP:GNG. To establish notability, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Mentions of the subject in sources like CNBC, TechRadar, and even the New York Times appear to be brief or incidental. For example, the subject is often included in lists or roundups of eSIM providers, where it's mentioned alongside other competitors without substantial analysis or in-depth focus on the app itself. These types of listicle mentions or roundups do not constitute significant coverage.

Even though the cited sources provide visibility and some recognition, they fall short of demonstrating the significant, independent, and in-depth coverage required to establish notability for a standalone article. It is more appropriate to keep the mention of Nomad briefly within the article about its parent company, LotusFlare (where it is already mentioned). I hope that you will agree, given my reasoning behind this. Nyxion💬 Talk 10:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that they all do not have significant coverage. Techradar is very lengthy. NY Times mentions NOMAD 10 times and appears to have about 10 paragraphs of info on them. In addition, a Google search brings back dozens of other reviews. Here are a few more I have found: PC Mag, Digital Trends, PlanHub, CyberNews, and Passporter. Shinadamina (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The app looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above by Keep voters.Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. Could you please share the sources you believe that have significant coverage of the subject? Nyxion💬 Talk 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said all the ones already mentioned by keep voters, including Aljazeera, CNBC, NY Times, Tech Radar. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Here is my assessment of the sources you mentioned:

Al Jazeera: Are we really counting a trivial mention of the subject in this article as significant coverage?

CNBC: A listicle/round-up, where the subject is mentioned with 9 of its different competitors. Just a list of 9 different e-SIM providers, one of which happens to be the subject. This doesn't count as significant coverage.

NY Times: One could make a good argument for why this may be notable, although its mention of the subject is a part of a broader discussion about eSIM technology but let's assume we count this as being +1 and do say this is significant coverage as the subject gets more than just a trivial mention here.

Tech Radar: Once again, this is a listicle/round-up, where the subject is mentioned with one of its different many different competitors. Just a list of different e-SIM providers, one of which happens to be the subject. This doesn't count as significant coverage either.

Please let me know which of my assessments, if any, you disagree with and why you think it does count as significant coverage of the subject. The NY Times article is the only one that can be, in my opinion, counted towards being a noteworthy source. All the others, as mentioned above, are not. One source isn't enough to keep the article on Misplaced Pages, however.

~~~~ Nyxion💬 Talk 23:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Both TechRadar and NY Times are very lengthily. NY Times mentions NOMAD 10 times, TechRadar mentions it 7 times. They are both several paragraphs long.

Also TechRadar has a full review here. Shinadamina (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep - the question here is if the sources mentioned count as significant coverage. I think it's a close call from the sources I can check myself, but the Aljazeera piece doesn't seem to be a trivial mention to me. I can't see the NYT or WSJ sources, but if either of them counts as significant, or another good source is found, then this meets WP:GNG easily. That being said, not all of the sources are good and some of them should probably be cut. I don't think the nominator's experience or competency needs to be called into question, they've got good reasoning throughout their arguments, but the issues can probably be fixed through editing. Tessaract2 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates