Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fasterplan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cool Hand Luke 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fasterplan

Fasterplan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I brought this up for a speedy as spam/advertisement, but the author disputed and it seems to be in good faith. Now I am bringing it here for notability. A Yahoo! search did not bring up relevant info, and, to me, it appears to be non-notable software, at least at the moment.--Old Hoss 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry for occupying the first line: I think most of the arguments below are outdated now. Fasterplan is notable - please refer to Lifehacker Report on Fasterplan. --Stoneweg 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a good first step, but one blog post on its own doesn't constitute sufficient notability. Here are the criteria that apply. Dreamyshade 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems NN (and no external links to support notability). - Rjd0060 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I looked at the website. I read the article. I Googled it. The only thing I could glean is that it is for a group to use for creating something online. (If the article provided the USP, and pointed to some sources, I might reconsider the matter. IOW, a major rewrite is required to change my mind.) jonathon 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I admit that the website is not notable for the moment, but: I also cannot find any rule in wikipedia - at least not in Deletion_policy - that says that an article has to deal with something notable. From my point of view, as long as the article is neutral, the user himself should decide if something is relevant to him or not. And, there is enough space in an online encyclopedia in order to mention also less notable things. However, I do understand the argument and if this is one of the requirements of articles to be published in Wikipedia than I understand that I have to wait writing about it until it is notable. One last question to jonathon: what does USP mean? - stoneweg —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
USP is a marketing term. Unique Selling Point. In this context, "Why does the company exist?"jonathon 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The company exists in order to make money and in order to help people organize their spare time meetings, in other words: bring them together. Honestly, I do not believe that there is a good marketing concept behind the site. It is not collecting user specific information like facebook. The only way to earn something would be to advertise. --Stoneweg 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The web service seems like a good idea, but Wikipedia can't be used as a vehicle for marketing purposes. Once the product takes off, and an independent source has accepted it, only then could it be a legitimate encyclopedic entry. As for now, it would be considered Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles.--Old Hoss 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Universal serial port, I believe.--Old Hoss 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)D'Oh!--Old Hoss 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has an important guideline about notability here: Wikipedia:Notability. There is space in an online encyclopedia for a broader range of subjects than a paper encyclopedia includes - learn more about that - but there has to be a limit somewhere. :) (I vote delete by the way, on the grounds of lack of notability.) Dreamyshade 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I am convinced. Go for deletion and once there are some sources available of independent people writing about the project I will make a second try. Thank you for sensitizing me to what is worth an article and what not. stoneweg —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Stoneweg, it helps to describe what and why the subject of the article is significant. jonathon 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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.