Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokbox

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokbox

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

Promotion for non-notable startup. Haakon (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. This [1] sort of coverage makes it clearly notable. Dream Focus 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some specialized sites may cover anything related to its interests. If the articles were, say, on a single column review of an important newspaper, it would be more convincing that those whole articles @ cnet. Mostly because that website reviews all of the software they host.--camr ^nag 12:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A delete !vote filled with POV. It's odd to find !votes like that. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So someone disagrees w/ you and you call him biased. Very mature.--camr ^nag 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that no guideline supports it. If no guidelines or policies support it, it is someone's personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm following guidelines: WP:N+WP:COMMON--camr ^nag 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't support it. So you mean WP:COMMON which is an essay and everyone has different opinions about what common sense is. So, it is your personal opinion. I didn't word my first comment well. I wasn't trying to attack you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't offend me. You may not like that policy, but it is still a policy. We don't get to ignore every policy we don't like, and that also is a policy.--camr ^nag 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a policy. It is an essay. The essay is part of the policy WP:IAR, but everyone has personal opinions about that (it really needs to be clearer). All that WP:IAR says is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The only way that people describe it is through two essays. It's an editor's choice whether to go by essays, but they aren't the rules. WP:DONTLIKEIT is part of an essay and I'm not even doing that anyways. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "part of a policy" should also be taken into account, there's a reason for them to be there. And yes, you don't like some rules, and you ignore them.--camr ^nag 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:IAR. See what I mean? Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please offer us reasons. If not, this is just a vote.--camr ^nag 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is obviously per the seven links I posted. It's easier to say per above than typing that all out. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's clearly a vote. The reason of WP:PERNOM is to avoid polling and provide reasons, which he doesn't, if he just repeats what you said.--camr ^nag 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if someone thinks that seven reliable sources with significant coverage meets WP:N, what else should the user say? Something a little more such as "I think that the seven reliable sources above show notability? It will always be the same thing no matter if a little or a lot more is added to it. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really need to say anything. If a very good argument has been made, he who determines the outcome of the deletion discussion will take into account the arguments, not the amount of people who agree with it. I really can't believe we are discussing this, please read this first. No polling in AFDs!!.--camr ^nag 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are times when those comments are acceptable and this is one of those times. If no one else commented, the AFD would be closed as no consensus or relisted. You're in the minority of people that think that those type of sources don't show notability and your only excuse is a sentence long policy that is always used per people's personal opinions and is constantly ignored in AFD. Essays are constantly ignored in AFD also. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should've ignored my vote from the beginning... Regarding the other topic: what you say may be valid. But if there's someone that agrees with you but is not capable of articulating a ten-word argument, then he/she should refrain from voting until the limited time of an AFD makes it imperative to participate. As you can see, two more people were skilled enough to write something else than "per Joe Chill". Because, regardless the reason, that's just polling.--camr ^nag 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole should thing is an opinion (definitely bias). Same with the 10 words thing (definitely bias). Saying someone isn't skilled enough could be viewed as a personal attack. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So everything I say is biased, but there's no problem with you saying that it's OK to break the WP:PERNOM rule. Sure, you're as objective as Fox News.--camr ^nag 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, WP:PERNOM is an essay! Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest that both of you stop this back-and-forth and either apologize to each other or avoid contact. Getting riled up over rules helps no one (that's what that other rule was meant to prevent) and just makes us look even more like the serious-business drama site so many other places say we are. If you two can't, I would suggest that someone close this discussion (even though it's been up only a few days and I've sought a Keep), talk with the editors about dispute resolution, or both. --an odd name 22:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is better stated by Joe Chill than I could state myself, so I leave it to him. I reiterate my keep, now a strong keep Doc Quintana (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I checked Joe Chill's links and they (in particular the NYT, TechCrunch, cnet, and PCMag ones, I think) demonstrate solid notability through multiple reliable sources per the general and web guidelines. --an odd name 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References above provided by Joe Chill demonstrate notability by significant coverage in industry relevant media. Ben Kidwell (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Joe Chill found which are more than sufficient for the purposes of the notability guidelines. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 15 October 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.