Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helperbird

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. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helperbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

DePRODed without improvement and improperly moved to mainspace. More coverage of its founder, but otherwise nothing independent or substantial to satisfy WP:NWEB or GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing how WP:NWEB (for the software/plugins), WP:NORG (for the organisation that builds the software) or WP:GNG (in general) are met. In terms of NWEB, it is unclear how this plugin is any more notable than any other browser add-on. In terms of NORG, there is limited depth of coverage on the company itself (coverage like the Forbes entry do not focus on the company, and are of a "listicle" type that wouldn't seem to confer notability on every member of the list). In terms of GNG, a search of the newspapers of record in Ireland (like in the Irish Times and in the Irish Independent) we see only a handful (3) of entries. And in most of those the subject is not the primary topic. Personally I would also have COI and PROMO concerns. Guliolopez (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I also agree about the COI/PROMO concerns. I was considering speedying it under G11 but no one seems to actually ever think they're promotional enough for that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually, could this qualify for G11 as the article creator appears to be the founder of the company? Can't believe I missed that at first. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I agree that the topic, as currently written, does not meet web content notability. Per WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I would support either deletion or giving the authors another try by moving it to Draft space, in case it actually does meet notability and simply needs more qualifying sources and content.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (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.