Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ip2location

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 Speedy Delete A7/G11 - no assertion of notability. This was an ad, not an encyclopedia article. Resolute 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ip2location

Ip2location (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been speedied, and it's been prodded, and it keeps coming back. Just for the sake of fairness, can we run it through AfD for a bit and establish a clear consensus about it? it does have a few sources cited, after all. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • delete Has one cite that meets wp:rs (the microsoft thing is just as much an ad as anything). Article is still an ad for a product that has received no significant coverage OUTSIDE its industry, only a single mention in Wired (which was a passing mention, not an article about the product). IP2location is a registered trademark, and doesn't pass NEO or NOTABILITY here. Pharmboy (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This article seems to reek of WP:SPAM, and the logo almost certainly doesn't meet WP:FU criteria... If someone were to re-write the aticle to not read like an advertisement, with proper sources, I'd be willing to change my views. But, I suspect that this won't happen. Also, the sources currently cited are not entirely useful. Using a company's web site as a primary source doesn't quite count, in my book. Nor does being mentioned in a sentence clause in a news article. And the MSDN Magazine link is really just a list of ads... So, I count this as unsourced, at the moment. (Full disclosure: I've used this company's products in the past, and my opinions expressed here are in no way influenced by the experience.) -- Lewellyn talk 15:04, 31 December 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.