Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Activeweave

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. Ignoring the comments unrelated to the question of whether the articles should be deleted, there is a clear consensus to delete. The comments about "Third voice", if I understand them correctly, are an attempt to say that this article cannot be deleted because of copyright concerns about content which was copied to that article. However, since that content was almost immediately removed again, that attempt to prevent deletion can very easily be dealt with by removing the irrelevant edits from view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activeweave

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All sources in the article are about the individual products by Activeweave, not the startup itself. The background section is basically unsourced advertising. Also, TechCrunch is unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 08:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simultaneous with this nom. some content has been copied to Third Voice an appropriate Template:copied template added. I regard a merge with Stickis is unlikely but should anyone feel either Stickis or Activeweave are kept I would suggest they consider bringing deprod and bring Stickis to this AfD and consider a merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request an admin closure please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stickis

I am also nominating the following related page at this convenient point because it would have had an expired prod for reason 'Created as part of promotional spam cluster 10 years ago; no improvement in the intervening decade. No RS coverage. Dead product, no prospect of RS coverage.' apart from being declined for earlier contest PROD where it was claimed sufficient references for notability were achieved though I am minded these are insufficient and would not survive close scrutiny to my understanding. I also note the subject seems not to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a period of time. However I can appreciate it is possible that some may feel a merge with Activeweave might sway the balance, though I currently do not unless persuaded otherwise. I found nothing what I judged to be significant in a WP:BEFORE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete both - both part of a promotional cluster from years ago, negligible RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given challenge at User_talk:Kpgjhpjm#Letting AfD's discussions run this was probably not the prudent of relists and should have been left to someone else. Deserves a WP:TROUT in my opinion. Can I requests admin's only deal with relists from this point as only they may appreciate the stickies. For avoidance of doubt despite what some alerting systems are saying Wumbolo had nominated Activeweave and I (Djm-leighpark) have nominated Stickis. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both Delete per lack of notability. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you come given my request Can I requests admin's only deal with relists from this point does a non-admin relist? Has the discussion not been read by the relister? So AfD is cluttered with this for another week? One reason I am interested is I have implicitly given a commitment to assist to merge should that continue for another week. Due to the extended length of this discussion I now withdraw and commitment to support any merge from Stickis to Activeweave or vice versa should that be an outcome, and now may or may not assist in any other merge from this discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third voice considerations means can surely plausibly only viably be delete+histmerge+delete, unless someone else is up for merging, redirect+content add, or a keeping, unless I be mistaken. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2018 (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.