Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reframe It

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reframe It

nn website Gotttor (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This stub article is an extension of the page about web annotations - it gives more detail about what a specific company is and does. It allows people to learn more about a web tool they might be interested in, since Wikipedia is the first place people check when they want to learn about a product they aren't familiar with.

Text isn't biased (doesn't unfairly promote or put down Reframe It) - simply states functionality of browser extension. Is not an advertisement: doesn't say the company/product is "great!" or anything of the sort.

Page should be kept so that people can learn about Reframe It from an open source that can be edited by anyone - not just from the Firefox and Reframe It websites.

Also, article is still a stub - hoping that people will add to it (as this is my first wiki page).

Thanks. Hp4life (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. WuhWuzDat 20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails WP:WEB. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a whole section on impact and significance. Think that means it passes. To be legitimate it has to mention the website's achievements, impact or historical significance, and this page has 2 of those 3. 69.4.157.189 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section's not encyclopedic content, it's an advertisement with a side of WP:CRYSTAL, "cited" to a blog post. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a work in progress. As the company is just starting, it stands to reason that it won't have as detailed a list of achievements or historical significance. Give people time to update it. Also, Reframe It shouldn't be listed with articles about websites being considered for deletion, as it is not a website. The Reframe It company HAS a website - but that's different. It is an internet related tool available to the public. Try it. Hp4life (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia; it is not a place for articles about non-notable new ideas. Your position seems to be another rephrasing of the old "up-and-coming" "next big thing" "shows potential" argument: in other words, you tacitly admit that it isn't notable yet, but argue that "it might be someday"! We don't accept articles based on your reading of a crystal ball. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB clearly. Triplestop x3 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--sorry, no reliable sources, no notability. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked to other web annotation pages for references in making a reliable page - what's the difference between Reframe It's page and sources and Diigo's? That one cites its own website and blog entries. Hp4life (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only citation to Diigo's own site is the first footnote, which tells us what d.i.i.g.o. stands for. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gonna have to agree with Hp4life about the whole Diigo thing. I just checked it out, and their pages basically look the same, with both referencing the same sorts of online articles. And I got rid of all those repeated cites to reframeit.com on the Reframe It page - they seemed pretty unnecessary. (No offense.) So now it isn't constantly referencing its "creator"
Appears to meet these requirements from WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" and also "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" because it is distributed by Mozilla Firefox. Sarah Hubbard 15 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand what "the content is distributed" means. That means that an article, for example, is on the Associated Press newswires as opposed to on somebody's MySpace page. Not all websites are equally reliable sources; what's on cnn.com is of considerably more weight than what's on GloriousPeoplesRevolutionaryCaucusHoxhaTendencyReformed.org. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 10 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.