Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedof.me

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 keep. Following relisting, the rough consensus is that coverage requirements are met. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 07:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedof.me

[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)

Non-notable website. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Tytrox (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Adila1360 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) -- The article meets the notability guideline. It has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. See the References section and that is why it got approved by SarahStierch exactly 7 years ago. Since approval, it has become only more notable. It's been referred to in several books and many scientific articles as well as news agencies and blog posts.[reply]

NOTE: Adila1360 is an SPA and the creator of the article, and virtually all their edits over the last few years have been to the nominated article or were related to it. Java Hurricane 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Adila1360: but it seems your thoughts may come across as conflict of interest. As JavaHurricane has noted, a large majority all of the article's edits, and as much of your own Contributions, have been on this article alone. This is not to say that your POV is invalid, but rather more consensus is needed to back your claim due to the CoI issue. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Tytrox:. I never tried to hide the fact that I'm the main editor of the page. In the AFD guideline, it says I can contribute to the discussion just like any other editor. Also, it says the content should be addressed not the people. As you know, this is not a newly created article. It’s been considered notable for the past seven years. So, I’m curious what suddenly changed that suggested it’s a non-notable candidate. On a different note, SpeedOf.me was the first Internet bandwidth test service that utilized HTML5 instead of Java or Flash plugins. This is something that all other speed tests (including speedtest.net) followed and adopted years after. This fact was removed from the original article because there was no concrete reference to support it. -- Adila1360 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not make any claim of significance + the sources are "run of the mill". Java Hurricane 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though article seems like an promotional listings. But it needs to expand in a proper way so as to impart depth knowledge about this tech. — PangolinPedia 23:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being accepted at AFC is not a guarantee of notability. The references in the article just mostly have speedof.me as one of many speed test sites. Coverage is not substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a bit of expansion. The references seem reliable. However, reference #9 has an exact phrase about the site from #8, the former should be removed. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:SNG. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The appropriate guidelines for this topic is WP:WEB. I disagree with JavaHurricane that the reason for deletion is that the article does not make any claim of significance. There are multiple references that discuss the specific notability of this website, which is that because it uses HTML5 it may be more accurate than other technologies. If this claim needs to stand out in the article, then fix the article. Its certainly not a reason to delete. Whpq !votes to delete because they say that the references "just mostly" include this website in a list of lots of speed test sites. That isn't entirely accurate. Most of the references contain reviews with indepdendent reviews carried out by the tech journalist/author and not just a mere list of websites. In my opinion, here are two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. This CNET article discusses this website in some detail, comparing results obtained with results from other testing sites and explains why HTML5-based speed tests have an advantage. This Lifewire article also provides an in-depth article on the website and the technology including the Independent opinion of the journalist. Topic is notable, meets GNG/WP:WEB. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the sources already present in the article, we have [1] (although this reads fairly promotional so it might be paid for). CNET, BBC, and Tech Radar are also all reliable, so this is a minimally notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the sources I put were already mentioned. But anyway, keep. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (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.