Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zedge

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 Merged to IDT Corp.#Zedge per WP:BOLD. utcursch | talk 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zedge

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with few other edits other than related to Zedge. References seem little more than self submitted press releases. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. --Hu12 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete -- Creator attempted to add links that cannot be viewed or followed, still pretty much non-notable and spam as near as I can tell. Accounting4Taste 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
* Delete (changed my mind) and SALT -- This is not our problem, now or in the future. Accounting4Taste 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Moderation -- Creator attempted to edit and revise to fix the link but moderator had placed it in the holding pen within seconds of the insert. Taking time to review the content would reveal that this is obviously not close to spam, although we can appreciate the error in having to review so many of these new additions with haste. Please release so this addition can be corrected properly. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewex (talk • contribs) 05:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Arbitrary decisionmaking and censorship -- Creator can supply evidence of coverage which in notable industry magazines but changes cannot be applied. The below page features dozens of exampes of "social networks" in Wikipedia that are not notable whatsoever. Zedge is extremely notable for promoting user generated content with its unique tools for the mobile phone - find me another site that has put user generated content on the map in the same fashion as Zedge? It is an Alexa Top 500 web site for a reason. The below list alone contains a large number of sites that are not notable in any fashion. If you're zealously deleting things as spam, then I've asked nicely to do this in even-handed fashion, which is not happening. If you're removing Zedge then you may as well remove dozens of sites from the following list, which is blatantly the product of self promotion or potentially those with some connection to whom is moderating Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites — Mikewex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. I know it's been speedied before, but it would be good to let the AfD run so CSD G4 will apply if it's recreated. Dbromage [Talk] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep satisfies notability per WP:WEB. This Yahoo! finance report and the other sources seem to demonstrate sufficient notability. Italiavivi 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: But that's just a press release from the company itself. Clearly that's not enough to meet the WP:WEB criteria that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Satori Son 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:V. Any report generated by a company cannot assert notability any more than my Facebook page can. WP:YMINAR. --Bfigura (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is conceivable that a worthwhile article on this topic might be created, but it might have to be a fresh start. Everything found by Google about Zedge is thick with advertising and promotion, so finding actual business information on Zedge is is very tough. If there are no believable third-party sources that can be cited in the article, then it has to go. The three items currently in the reference list don't seem to be much more than reprinted press releases. EdJohnston 01:09, 1 September 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.