Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabble
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article gives no indication of notability, and i could not find any refs online aside from their website, which is in beta Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know enough about Dabble to know whether it should stay or go, but all I would like to point out that if the article is going to stay, the article's English will have to be improved a great deal. One can see that it is currently an article that begins with the word "Also" - since there is no information before the opening sentence, this is quite clearly bad English. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. What it is is bad reversion of vandalism. You've been here long enough by now to know to look at an article's edit history, surely? Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had not looked at the article's history - but I have also been here long enough to know that vandalism normally gets reverted by ClueBot. Does any one know who attempted this bad reversion of vandalism? Incidentally, I see that the bad English has been improved upon now - the article is in better English than it was. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I've said before, there is no guideline that says "startup generated hype and then died off". Notability is not temporary, and I'm seeing coverage from Crunchbase, Mashable and CNET. It's just badly sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability may not be temporary, but it does have to exist in the first place. Where are these independent sources documenting the sbuject in depth that you allude to but don't cite? So far, I've just found a two sentence treatment in a magazine (Monson 2007), a one-sentence treatment in The Hindu (Murali 2006), and lots of press releases which are not independent of the subject and don't count. That's three sentences, total, some of which is overlap. It's hardly in-depth coverage.
- Monson, Kyle (2007-08-27). "Video — Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites". PC Magazine.
- Murali, J. (2006-09-04). "Tracking on-line video content". The Hindu.
- Uncle G (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as basic coverage: [1][2][3][4][5]. I think that's enough to get it past basic WP:GNG. I remember Dabble being quite the hype at the time. Without merit, as it turned out. But that's the reason for my !vote. Another older startup recently came into AfD and my comment was pretty much the same, because of that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one that I'd take slight issue with in that list is Sterling 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSterling2006 (help), and that mainly because it doesn't provide much about this particular subject except a pointer to a press release. The merit of the WWW site in our personal opinions is, as you rightly say, irrelevant. It's whether the subject is properly and fully documented or not. What you have there is a lot more than three partly overlapping sentences. Well found. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as basic coverage: [1][2][3][4][5]. I think that's enough to get it past basic WP:GNG. I remember Dabble being quite the hype at the time. Without merit, as it turned out. But that's the reason for my !vote. Another older startup recently came into AfD and my comment was pretty much the same, because of that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability may not be temporary, but it does have to exist in the first place. Where are these independent sources documenting the sbuject in depth that you allude to but don't cite? So far, I've just found a two sentence treatment in a magazine (Monson 2007), a one-sentence treatment in The Hindu (Murali 2006), and lots of press releases which are not independent of the subject and don't count. That's three sentences, total, some of which is overlap. It's hardly in-depth coverage.
- Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, as the article is, it explains almost nothing about what the product (?) is or does. It gives the impression that Dabble is a video search site which I use by waving my arms at my computer. Maproom (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per WP:CSB (web related bias). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'generated hype' is not independent. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.