The result was delete as most editors feel the provides sources do not satisfy WP:PROUDCT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Most sources are unreliable or non-independent. All RS give only passing mention, fails WP:SIGCOV. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and siteis trivial coverage, and WP:SIGCOV, which states that
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Source #1 does not constitute significant coverage. PrivacyTools appears once in a table, alongside a long list of other websites, with a brief one-sentence summary. It appears in another table which lists the basic features of a number of similar websites. It then appears as short section (about 30 words) later on. For a 62 page paper, that does not constitute significant coverage. Source #6 is primary - the author, Jonah, describes himself as the administrator of PrivacyTools; the first paragraph contains the phrase at PrivacyTools we recommend...
. Source #5 is not significant coverage: it is only mentioned three times and even here, the article is talking about what PrivacyTools recommends, rather than about the website itself. Source #4 is probably the closest to establishing notability but is still not enough. I have had a look myself but cannot find any sources with more than a namecheck.
WJ94 (
talk)
15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete as most editors feel the provides sources do not satisfy WP:PROUDCT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Most sources are unreliable or non-independent. All RS give only passing mention, fails WP:SIGCOV. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and siteis trivial coverage, and WP:SIGCOV, which states that
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Source #1 does not constitute significant coverage. PrivacyTools appears once in a table, alongside a long list of other websites, with a brief one-sentence summary. It appears in another table which lists the basic features of a number of similar websites. It then appears as short section (about 30 words) later on. For a 62 page paper, that does not constitute significant coverage. Source #6 is primary - the author, Jonah, describes himself as the administrator of PrivacyTools; the first paragraph contains the phrase at PrivacyTools we recommend...
. Source #5 is not significant coverage: it is only mentioned three times and even here, the article is talking about what PrivacyTools recommends, rather than about the website itself. Source #4 is probably the closest to establishing notability but is still not enough. I have had a look myself but cannot find any sources with more than a namecheck.
WJ94 (
talk)
15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)