Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamzar
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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zamzar
User:MER-C placed a speedy tag on this article, but it definitely doesn't look speedy-able to me; seemed to have some references on google, as well as a high hit count. I am neutral Part Deux 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I suspect the rationale for db-tagging it was that the article (one sentence long) contains no actual assertion of notability. It tells you what the site is, but doesn't tell you why it's important, making it speedyable under A7. However, if we're going to put it through the full AfD process, then delete per no evidence of notability, external links to their own site, no proof of multiple coverage by reliable independent sources. Walton monarchist89 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I brought it here is precisely because I think it may be notable and the sources may exist. In other words, I'm asking people to help me look for the sources, and, should the sources fail to exist, only then should we decide upon deletion. As it stands, I was able to find one from google news: an article on yahoo's tech blog, which seems notable. It also received a mention from PCMag. If anyone can find anything else, I ask for help in this. Thanks. Part Deux 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No matter the amount of sources it stills needs an assertion of notability in the article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it now asserts notability: [1]. Now, can we prove it with independent sources, like the one I've given. Part Deux 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- xD Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very clever, Part Deux. Technically it now asserts notability, but it still has no evidence of independent sources to prove notability. If you can find some by the end of this AfD, I will change my vote. Walton monarchist89 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Walton, please assume good faith. The reason I did that was so that we wouldn't keep on talking about "the article no longer asserts notability", when I was simply asking for us to be searching for notability, rather than claiming it doesn't assert it now. So I am asking others to help me find sources (rather than just vote) because they appear to exist. I've already provided a few, PCMag and yahoo business. Part Deux 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise, I wasn't intending to assume bad faith, nor did I mean to imply that you were mis-using the process. As I said, if you can add the sources you mention to the article, then I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- NP. In any case, I've added the two articles, though they're a little silly. The first, the yahoo article, supports notability, but this particular article isn't about the product. The second, PCMag, just mentions it having a bad name. In any case, I bet 10:1 the sources exist somewhere. But, I gtg, so I can't check further. Sorry. Part Deux 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise, I wasn't intending to assume bad faith, nor did I mean to imply that you were mis-using the process. As I said, if you can add the sources you mention to the article, then I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Walton, please assume good faith. The reason I did that was so that we wouldn't keep on talking about "the article no longer asserts notability", when I was simply asking for us to be searching for notability, rather than claiming it doesn't assert it now. So I am asking others to help me find sources (rather than just vote) because they appear to exist. I've already provided a few, PCMag and yahoo business. Part Deux 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very clever, Part Deux. Technically it now asserts notability, but it still has no evidence of independent sources to prove notability. If you can find some by the end of this AfD, I will change my vote. Walton monarchist89 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- xD Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it now asserts notability: [1]. Now, can we prove it with independent sources, like the one I've given. Part Deux 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No matter the amount of sources it stills needs an assertion of notability in the article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I brought it here is precisely because I think it may be notable and the sources may exist. In other words, I'm asking people to help me look for the sources, and, should the sources fail to exist, only then should we decide upon deletion. As it stands, I was able to find one from google news: an article on yahoo's tech blog, which seems notable. It also received a mention from PCMag. If anyone can find anything else, I ask for help in this. Thanks. Part Deux 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think two trivial mentions is enough to pass WP:SOFTWARE.--Dacium 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I've added a number of "non-trivial" mentions across the Web to the article to support Zamzar's case for inclusion .--Coyote 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep the bad, I looked at the references provided they are lame. The article is a short stub with almost not significant content. But the subject passes notability so significantly that it needs to stay. It is so notable the del.icio.us / tag / Zamzar shows that over 10,000 different del.icio.us users have saved it to their favorites Wikipedia Main page is only 21,000. So that makes Zamzar about half as notable as Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the article does not provide reliable sources to support any claim of notability under WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Nuttah68 11:46, 26 February 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.
