Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vistogram

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. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vistogram

[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)

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this product (a trademarked type of diagram). Google Scholar turns up sources that use the term "vistogram" as a type of image histogram, which is unrelated to this page. The company that made this doesn't seem notable, so it's probably unlikely that one of their trademarks is. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, Software, and England. jolielover♥talk 16:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD A7. The ® after every instance of its name is the cherry on top. jolielover♥talk 16:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of the trademark - please use portal here and search using reference number: UK00003753379 Barnaby Davies (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is guidance on use (or over use of) of ® then please advise and will follow. I will try and find the same. Thank you. Barnaby Davies (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules, part of our Manual of Style. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of notability - please search 11989203 via US Patent & Trademark portal here: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html

Invention and novelty evidenced by virtue of patent grant. Notice of allowability provided on request.

Additionally - one of a very limited number of data visualizations suited to schedule data sets in >100 years. Barnaby Davies (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the trademark - please use portal here and search using reference number: UK00003753379 Barnaby Davies (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has to be established by secondary sources. See WP:RS, WP:Primary jolielover♥talk 17:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. It was released in October 2025 (or so the article says) so it's not exactly surprising that it fails the general notability guideline. Give it a year and we'll see where it's at. Also, I disagree with the WP:CSD A7 tagging as the article does make a claim of significance. However, it reads like an advert, so I'd be tempted to speedy delete it as WP:CSD G11. At this stage, though, we might as well let the AfD run its course and see if the creator can fix the many issues. Pichpich (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say speedy delete too based on G11 but it looks like speedy delete was already declined. Sources are only primary. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:NOTPROMO and there is no evidence this passes WP:NPROD or even WP:GNG.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the speedy deletion because it doesn't qualify for A7. But the lack of significant coverage means regular deletion does apply. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance here and elsewhere. I realise both the content and the author are in the wrong place. Please delete at your convenience. I apologise for the overhead. Barnaby Davies (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not speedy, but fails WP:SIGCOV anyway, so on that we should delete it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A7 doesn't apply here, there is no SIGCOV needed to warrant an article. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2025 (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.