Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigablast (2nd 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Gigablast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. References consist of Alexa figures, Wikipedia, Google search pages, PRNewsWire, and WP:SPS. GNews shows PR releases by the company. GBooks have limited coverage, nothing in depth. Previously deleted by AfD: Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• keep

There are many notable sources with good coverage:

The ACM Queue (Association for Computing Machinery) is a highly respected journal/organization in Computer Science .

Business 2.0 is very popular and respected:

The NSA (Nation Security Administration) Spy Training Manual:

And it is not true that no Google books results provide in-depth coverage. Here is one of quite a few from Google Books that does:

FURTHERMORE, even if you dispute whether or not these articles are in-depth, the wikipedia page on "in depth" at

indicates that multiple independent sources referencing a topic is a good substitute for lack of depth in any one article: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Thus the shear numbers of references to Gigablast in the book search (over 1000 results), web search (over one million results), etc. are good enough, and you can't argue that about one million results for the query 'gigablast' on google is not notable enough.

The previous deletion of the Gigablast page in 2008 was shown to be affiliated with a malicious IP whose account has since been deleted for being abusive: User:Ecoleetage

And there is no evidence the page is promotional.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 September 2013‎ (UTC) — Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep GregJackP, though I agree that press releases (as from PRNewsWire) and the Gigablast help page do not establish notability. However, the Steve Kirsch interview in ACM Queue is I believe a good indication of notability. It is also discussed in Maura D. Shaw, Mastering Online Research: A Comprehensive Guide to Effective and Efficient Search Strategies, and many other books on web search and SEO, as well as almost all Web sites about search engines and SEO. True, its audience is tiny compared to Google or Bing, but I think it's an interesting part of the search engine history and ecosystem. I don't see what in the article makes you consider it "promotional". --Macrakis (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous AfD said it was promotional - it was a typo above, since corrected. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This article was copied into mainspace by Wiki12rt, a single-purpose account (SPA) almost surely affiliated with Gigablast. The COI SPA has violated Wikipedia community norms both while putting the article into mainspace and afterwards. The article needs work, in Macrakis's user space, before we can even consider whether or not it is acceptable in mainspace. For now, it reads like a press release and seems more like one-sided journalism than balanced journalism. Please delete per CSD G11 for now. If Wiki12rt leaves Wikipedia, never to return, then perhaps we can work further on the article in userspace then discuss whether it's acceptable in mainspace or not. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

* I did not initiate the article nor did i originally put it into mainspace. An account that was ultimately banned as an abusive user was responsible for deleting it in 2008. User:Ecoleetage

* What, per G11, specifically makes you think it is an advertisement or promotional? (i.e. reads like a press release? because press releases very frequently contain quotes from those involved, whereby, this article does not) If it reads like a press release then perhaps some revision is in order, but not an entire deletion, since notability has been established. Wiki12rt (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

* When you say " If Wiki12rt leaves Wikipedia, never to return, then perhaps we can work further...", it hurts my feelings that you are encouraging me to leave wikipedia and never return again. Why don't you like me? -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like you. But youI do say this: you've made some highly biased edits on Wikipedia. You're not here to build an encyclopedia: you're here to promote Gigablast. Such motives are unwelcome here. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC); last edited 05:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

i'm here to build wikipedia, but, even if you don't believe me, let's agree to keep this vote and discussion limited to the true worthiness of the article, and not individual assumptions of my intentions. i.e. Attack the message NOT the messenger. -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

* What specifically about the article seems like one-sided journalism? all of it is taken practically verbatim from reliable, independent, third-party sources. -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It is notable and non-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevBooyah (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - whether it is promotional or not is irrelevant. Whether it was created by an SPA or not is irrelevant. Unforgettableid, you need to lay off the personal attacks and general abuse, as well. It appears, from sources listed by Macrakis, that this company satisfy WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I toned down an earlier comment of mine which I wrote in my exchange with Matt above. Matt, the words I removed were foolish and wrong; I apologize for writing them. Lukeno94, if the article is promotional, this does matter: it means that people can vote "delete per G11" if they feel that such a vote is appropriate. And perhaps an argument that an article was posted by an SPA may help make clear to an on-the-fence editor that an article is promotional. About your last point: I don't believe that articles in trade or academic magazines are enough to prove notability. I believe these are included in WP:CORPDEPTH's exclusion of "media of limited interest and circulation". And, if the assertion GregJackP made in his nomination is correct, then maybe not even a single mainstream book on Google Books covers the company or their product in sufficient depth. (The NSA's Untangling the Web book may also fall under "media of limited interest and circulation".) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The full quote from WP:CORPDEPTH is: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is no mention of excluding "articles in trade" or "academic magazines". Furthermore, none of the Gigablast sources given can be considered to be "local" media. The NSA isn't local. Neither is searchenginewatch.com or about.com. The ACM Queue is likely an Internationally circulated magazine. Look at the page about Association for Computing Machinery, it is one of the defacto standard sources in Computer Science. The Business 2.0 source is as well. So according to WP:CORPDEPTH the indication of notability is strong. Why are you picking on this, Unforgettableid? There are many other pages in Wikipedia with a lot less cred than this one. There are literally thousands of unique references to Gigablast on the web. Almost ALL of the search engines listed here have less references. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. Look at Blingo for instance.

Also, the article is not promotional because all the content is taken almost verbatim from independent, reliable, third-party sources. And G11 does not forbid promotional articles at all, what is says is this: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." So YOU have to say exactly how the article is NOT NEUTRAL. What part is biased? And how? I think i see the disconnect here. You feel that I myself am heavily biased, therefore the article I re-entered into mainspace must be heavily biased. The article has to say things like "this is the greatest product ever" to count as being biased. Granted, a lot of newly created pages are, but this is not one of them.

In case you like the fact that Blingo's one reference from PC Magazine was a good thing, I just added a couple references from PC Magazine to the Gigablast page. Maybe it would be faster if you tell me what sources you are required to see and I will try to get the article they wrote about Gigablast.

here's a link to perhaps 10,000 articles written about Gigablast from various third-party sources on google's news archive search. just dig through there and find whatever source tickles your fancy then add it to the Gigablast page: googles news archive search for gigablast

Please consider the new references added to the Gigablast page as well: PC World, Albuquerque Tribune, Boston Globe, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Fair point about the competition. I just nominated Thiv for speedy deletion (it's been deleted now) and Vivisimo for regular deletion. If you see any others that look like press releases, please say so. But not here: only at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gigablast (2nd nomination). That page is on my watchlist.

Lots of articles can qualify for G11. Any page which fails G11 can be kept, or can be nominated for deletion. It's up to our discretion.

I am picking on Gigablast because I know there's a COI editor hanging around the article. If you had never edited, and had simply had User:Macrakis move his article into mainspace, I think I would never have nominated Gigablast for deletion.

I, personally, would like to see several mainstream published sources which each include at least one lengthy paragraph — preferably more — about Gigablast. The New York Times or The Globe and Mail would do. PC Magazine, PC World, Macworld, or similar? Probably also fine. But each of those several sources needs to include enough information about Gigablast in it. From what I can see, neither of your PC Magazine sources qualify.

Ideally, never edit the article at all. You can post sources here, or you can put edit requests on the article's talk page. Either would be fine.

If I could somehow get an ironclad assurance that you would never edit the article again, ever, I would probably edit the article and remove COI material. COI-free articles are immune from G11 deletion. Maybe you could speak to some administrator — perhaps Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) — and tell them who you are (I insist on this); then try asking them to ban you from that article page (but not the talk page) forever.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do not nominate Vivisimo for deletion. That is an important part of the search culture. They sold to IBM for over $100M dollars allegedly. To delete that page would be hurting Wikipedia and its historical accounts of the alternative search engine space.
• Stop calling me Matt. Call me by my username.
• You can't just delete articles that are within Wikipedia guidelines. It just isn't fair.
• I don't think G11 means what you think it means. I'm not harping on you, but consider this note in definition from CSD G11 : "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". And if you click on "neutral point of view" the definition for that is: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". So in order to play the G11 card you have to point out what part of the information was not represented fairly or proportionately in the Gigablast article. It says nothing about allowing you to play the G11 card for COI. If there were such a rule it would say that employees or affiliates of a company can not edit the wikipedia page for that company. So you are definitely stretching the definition into a place it was not meant to go, in order to further your own agenda.
• Why doesn't the first PC Magazine article qualify? It's a lengthy paragraph about Gigablast.
• Why are several such high profile sources now required (for you personally) for a Wikipedia page to be notable even though this is not in the Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Even if you suspect a COI, you can't delete an article because of it. Here is Wikipedia's stance on COI: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• You said: "I would probably edit the article and remove COI material". Exactly what would you remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The PC Magazine and PR News Wire references are sufficient to establish notability. In its current state, the article is not unduly promotional. Axl ¤ 09:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The PR NewsWire ref is a press release. So it fails WP:SPS and does not contribute to notability. The policy page WP:V has a footnote which discusses press releases; please see it. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Axl ¤ 08:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The new reference from techcrunch.com (which gets significantly more traffic than pcmag.com, a source you believe to be mainstream) and the ACM Queue reference (an academic magazine - unforgettableid, it seems you have changed your mind and now believe academic magazines are good sources) are plenty 'nuff to float the boat here. I think you will agree they are "mainstream" enough. I also added a nytimes.com, wsj.com and cnet.com references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was mistaken in my previous thinking that academic sources were never okay. I have not clicked through to the Queue article nor evaluated it to see whether or not it proves notability. It's late; I think I want to go to bed soon. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's an entire article a few pages long about Gigablast. Also, after I added ONLY references from Techcrunch, NYT and WSJ to the Gigablast page you posted a threatening note on my user page. Please stop this behaviour. It is intimidating and mentally affects me and it is against Wikipedia's policy on harassment. You have been harassing me with these warnings on my Talk page, calling me Matt, and telling me to leave Wikipedia and never come back. I really am feeling that I am unwelcome here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions page indicates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. People not here to build an encyclopedia — even if they're wonderful, kind, and generous people — are unwelcome here. Still, I have removed the level-3 user-warning template I put on your user page. Even though you're an SPA user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, a reasonable case could be made that the template was unwarranted. (Please note that the templates act as tracking devices: administrators often will refuse to block a user who has not reached level 4.) The New York Times article you cited seems not to constitute significant coverage; I have edited the article and annotated the reference to reflect this fact. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am here to build a better Wikipedia. I am not an SPA, I've stood up for quality pages like Vivisimo, and others, which you are trying to delete, which would hurt Wikipedia. You just now edited the Gigablast page and inserted a bunch of negative bias and criticism. Now it seems a lot less neutral. You can't nominate a page for deletion because you think it is non-neutral, then add a bunch of non-neutral elements to it. This behaviour is outrageous. How can any page get a "fair trial" when you desecrate it during the voting period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.3.61 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is okay to add properly-sourced criticism to Wikipedia articles. The criticism I added cites the New York Times and is properly-sourced. If you want the Gigablast article deleted, simply cross out your "keep" vote above, including your explanation, and vote "delete" just below the explanation. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see this policy summary for details. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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.