Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco (application)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (application)

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

Fails WP:ORG's subsection for products.

Outside of the four references in the article, I could find no more significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

The article has four references in it. Two are about a barely related subject (Harvard's i-lab) and two are significant coverage from independent and seemingly reliable sources. Still, neither source ("AddictiveTips" and "MakeTechEasier") are what I would consider a large source and as WP:AUD points out, "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Also, both call themselves blogs which may not help their reliability.

There may be more coverage out there but it's hard to find anything in the slew of download pages scattered across the internet. It doesn't help that "Coco" has so many other uses, either.

On a side note, this was the author's first article and the only other article they worked on was the creating company's article (Instanza). They seem to be an WP:SPA. WCS100 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yet another drop in the torrent of indistinguishable instant messaging apps with their own incompatible proprietary protocol. The analysis of situation sources by nominator appears correct (although I would note that Edudemic is actually a reprint from Harvard Gazette). I would argue that WP:ORG doesn't apply to this article at all, but I still would expect at least one reputable source in addition to "AddictiveTips" and "MakeTechEasier", which are at best second-grade sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised that WP:ORG is the only part of the notability guideline that mentions products, outside of what WP:GNG covers. WP:PRODUCT is in WP:ORG and covers this situation, to a degree. I'm not sure how new that is but I've seen several situations just like this one where articles about a product and company are kept because of inherited notability. I'm glad it's been added. WCS100 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instanza about the company that makes this product. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage for Coco or Coco Voice. The references in the article are very unimpressive. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (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.