Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Nomad (app) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jasonswat (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 26 December 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:37, 26 December 2024 by Jasonswat (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Nomad (app)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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)

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 your are no 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)

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)
Categories: