Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Cart (3rd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart

[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)

It is time to revisit this. I'll cite a comment from the second nomination: " This article is a waste of Wikipedia space. All the sources above are terrible - press-releases, prices, mentions - they really do not show any notability; actually they just prove that the company uses Wikipedia as advertising platform and it is hardly notable. If these are all the sources, then I can't imagine how this advertising page can be improved".

This is absolutely correct. Ovinus just cleaned up the article, but it's still a mystery to me how it was kept after the second nomination: the eight links provided there by User:Ad Meliora, a user who mysteriously appeared and disappeared, are just terrible--dead, PR, single mentions, trivia, commercial websites. This needs to be deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks, Drmies, for taking the plunge for me. There are lots of reviews, probably enough to pass WP:NPRODUCT, but as this article is about the company (and its product of the same name), we need WP:CORPDEPTH-level sourcing. We have at least one somewhat independent source, i.e., the one I put in the article ([1]); that source references another source about the same security incident ([2]). I can't find any other similarly independent sources, though, and I wouldn't personally consider those sources to have appropriate depth. Ovinus (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:CORPDEPTH, apparently not enough reliable sources with enough coverage, so also fails wp:SIGCOV. Nythar^T^.^C 02:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would offer to send this to draft if there was a serious attempt to improve this article but I don't see that happening. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did look at the sources provided in the previous AfD as well as a previous version of the article, and I cannot fathom how this survived AfD last time. This one single source is a review that might show notability, but it's a lone article and WP:GNG requires multiple third-party sources. The other sources provided in the previous AfDs were literally press releases and the like, sources that are absolutely not independent and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept in the previous discussion. Article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the said discussion. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources, exactly, do you believe were indicated in that previous discussion that show notability? The press releases? The activity on the last AfD were from yourself, along with a sockpuppet, and an editor who edited for a month two years ago and has not been seen since; not exactly a thoroughly discussed AfD. It looks like the sources from that discussion were thrown in as "whatever is on Google that matches the product name" because a lot of them are literally press releases; it looks like the editor who added them either did not read through what they were adding to the discussion, or did not understand Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. Either way, citing that previous discussion as cause to keep the article is problematic, because the sources brought up were problematic, and apparently were not looked at very carefully because there are obvious issues with those links. - Aoidh (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the links are dead, but salvageable. They only contain mentions of the product. The rest of the links still work and none of them are press releases. I believe they are reliable and talk about the product. So, don't you dare argue with me. My "keep" stands no matter what. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To say that none of the remaining sources are press releases is inaccurate, and it becomes obvious when you take the time to actually examine the sources. This is taken from this press release from GlobeNewswire. This is an exact copy of this press release from PR Newswire. Of the two deadlinks, this is as a trivial mention as possible and this is just a promotional copy of the first deadlink, which is just as trivial. I'm not trying to change your keep argument, just pointing out to the closing admin and others commenting that your keep rationale is based on inaccuracies and is inconsistent with what WP:GNG requires in terms of reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2022 (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.