Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORUM8

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. Shereth 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FORUM8

Most content has no relevant source. One reference in other language. Most references to company site. Cargoking talk 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find coverage in reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] (フォーラムエイト=FORUM8) That the coverage is in Japanese is not a problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References in Japanese don't really help. Cargoking talk 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, foreign language references are acceptable. English is preferred, but if only foreign is available, that is fine. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said they didn't help, not that they weren't allowed. I too have issues with things I can't read being used as sources. Is it really WP:V if I can't verify it? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that a source that you in particular can't read because it's in a language you can't read isn't verifiable is like arguing that a source you in particular can't read because it's in a magazine from the 1960's that hasn't been digitized yet isn't. And no, that's not a strawman argument, because I've seen editors argue just that, multiple times -- if it's not something they can read with a single click then it's not a real reference, according to them. Which blatently flies in the face of what WP:V actually says. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this article is pure spam. Aside from the issue of self-promotion, an extensive search for English language sources shows that Forum8 is the subject of self-published sources, but coverage manufactured by the company itself does not confer notability. The is no verifiable evidence to suggest that this company or its products meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who translates articles from foreign-language Wikipedias to English, I want to say that it's established custom and practice on Wikipedia that foreign-language sources are fine, provided they're reliable. Frankly, I don't want to see my hard-written material deleted just because the five or six editors at an AfD don't speak the language and can't figure out Google translate, so I want that to be clearly understood.
Having said that, in this case Gavin.collins has the right of it, and I think the Japanese-language sources in this case do not establish notability. Delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just custom and practice -- it's policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate is not always accurate. Cargoking talk 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it isn't. Always best to get someone who speaks the language to check.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of a Japanese speaker to check the sources, with the suspicion that they are not truly independent (ie. press releases or paid articles), noting that the only significant author has contributed only to this article and pages directly related to it, I smell an undisclosed WP:COI issue, and think deletion is the way to go. The article originated from ja.wikipedia.org; why hasn't that article been expanded? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2009 (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.