Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mapfig

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 userfy . j⚛e decker ^talk 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mapfig

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

Non-notable software with no independent sources. Conifer (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On July 16, 2015, we released our own tile set "Whitewater" [1], becoming one of only handful of map providers (notably; Google, CartoDB, MapBox, MapQuest, Stamen, and OpenStreetMaps) to offer free map tiles for public use.

Further, the tiles are available under https as well as http.

Combined with MapFig's Open Source code, we believe this is highly significant and warrants inclusion on WikiPedia. MapFig Studio represents a major new choice for anyone wanting to make web based maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. Fails to get anywhere close to WP:GNG. Comments by DavidGhedini clearly indicate a lack of understanding about what a Wikipedia article is. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being only one of only a handful of map tile providers in the world is not notable?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "notability" means that a topic has received coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then it is deemed significant enough to have an article. Whether someone considers a topic important or not is not part of our guideline for inclusion. Conifer (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Do we have some time to provide this? We do expect mention in several trade and other outlets this week? - David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, we can move the article to your user space. Then, when there are more reliable sources on Mapfig, you can have an experienced editor review the article to see if it meet the notability standard for companies. Conifer (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would great. Thanks for your assistance. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per discussion above. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (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.