Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online OCR services

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. Will incubate or userfy on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online OCR services

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

Previously proded list declined by author. I nominated it under the 'Wikipeida is not a list, nor is it a directory for available services' as things Wikipedia is not. Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Note Author claimed during prod decline "There is no other article on Wikipedia that lists or explains Online OCR services. There is a list of OCR software, an there should also be a list of online OCR services." This seems rather self explanitory in WP:OTHERSTUFF and the fact that we will probably not be the first site that a user will turn to when evaluating Online OCR applications Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On the one hand, this is part of a series of similar articles, some of which are great (see Comparison of web browsers for a good example). On the other hand, unlike in that article, I'm not convinced that any of the four sites in this one are notable or verifiable. This is probably a delete unless someone is willing to bring it up to scratch, which may not even be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new subsection of List of optical character recognition software. I've removed the embedded external links. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:SOAP, and WP:UNDUE. The list contains not a single independent, reliable source to indicate that any of the information is worth mentioning other than for promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Merge to List of optical character recognition software. Online services should not be excluded. Trinity6745 (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a merge will produce the same effect as just deleting the article. List of optical character recognition software only contains entries with their own articles, while Online OCR services has no such entries. --Ronz (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that the services are mentioned for promotional purposes because most of them are completely free. The services are also very popular, judging by their traffic. Either as an independent article, or as a part of List of optical character recognition software, I am convinced that a list of the online OCR services should be available in Wikipedia. I do not understand the reasoning behind the argument that Wikipedia will not be the first source that people will turn to when choosing an online service. For one thing, people may not even know that these services exist. You agree that a list of OCR desktop software is useful but why not online services? These two categories are basically the same. As for sources, articles are not deleted because they have a small number of sources. ocrworld.com is an independent source, and we my find additional sources over time.Amaranthine J (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Material can be promotional and free. Cost isn't a factor. If something is popular or useful, we need independent, reliable sources that verify the popularity or usefulness. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the original creator is specifically requesting more time to seek out sources for notability. Premature deletion seems like a case of biting on a newly created article. It is a poor candidate for deletion to begin with (not tagged for notability and new article, Before nomination for deletion) and that coupled with the editor's request should be enough to grant a temporary reprieve for them to either establish notability or not. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Incubator. Author could have created a Userspace draft of the article first to get all the ducks in a row before it landed in the main article space. I would also direct you to the Article's history. When it was originally created it claimed no special "reprieve" so as such I treated the article that way. Hasteur (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry, I must have missed where the new editor was notified of that? It seems rather harsh on the newbie that deletion is action of first resort, instead of simply moving it to the incubator? -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just propose it be moved to userspace? --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ronz (especially WP:NOTDIR), not merge per Ronz's comment that it would not serve any purpose. If the creator wants to incubate or userfy, I don't object; that is always a option, though I doubt it would ever lead to this article being recreated in mainspace. And since the creator has already participated in this AfD, I think we can expect that the editor, if s/he cares, is now aware of the option. Novaseminary (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2010 (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.