Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splitwise - Wikipedia
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) HighKing++ 20:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitwise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing++ 12:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing++ 12:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: (As author.) WP:CORPDEPTH, which the nominator linked to, says,
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.
(emphasis mine) Some of the "reviews" of the app cited here are published by very reputable sources like The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, and The Guardian. It's even discussed in a published book. I see no reason why we'd need independent notability of the parent company that owns the app, when the app itself is a pretty clear GNG pass. Reliable sources that review the product are still reliable sources. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this topic because the article is about the company, not the product/app. The company does not meet the notability criteria but looking at the reviews, It may be that the product/app has sufficient sourcing to meet GNG/NCORP. I've no objections to reworking the article if that is the case so that the article is then primarily about the product. BTW, the part you highlighted in CORPDEPTH applies when the topic is about a product - NCORP guidelines apply to topics about company or topics about products, but you can't inherit notability from one to establish notability of the other. HighKing++ 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct that notability can't be inherited, but things change a bit since sources generally treat Splitwise the app and Splitwise the company as one and the same. If the product weren't the sole thing the company focused on, I'd agree with you. In this case though, I think a simple edit like this would have been a better choice than jumping to deletion. Clearly the subject "Splitwise" is notable and worthy of an article one way or the other—it's basically just a matter of the wording in the lead. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, on reflection, that would have been a more sensible option. I'll withdraw the nomination. HighKing++ 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this topic because the article is about the company, not the product/app. The company does not meet the notability criteria but looking at the reviews, It may be that the product/app has sufficient sourcing to meet GNG/NCORP. I've no objections to reworking the article if that is the case so that the article is then primarily about the product. BTW, the part you highlighted in CORPDEPTH applies when the topic is about a product - NCORP guidelines apply to topics about company or topics about products, but you can't inherit notability from one to establish notability of the other. HighKing++ 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination, a simple edit to change the focus to "software" is the sensible option. HighKing++ 20:27, 8 August 2024 (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.