Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Eyes

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Eyes

Covenant Eyes (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)

Delete. [Edit: See my new vote, visible below in my comment added 23:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC).]

Tagged with {{notability}} for almost a year. PRODded. Seconded.[1] Deleted. Undeleted thanks to a single-purpose IP which geolocates to just 40 miles (65 km) away from company headquarters with a lame excuse.

But the subject fails WP:GNG. (Non-Wikipedians: See WP:42 for a summary.)

Article cites only Owosso's local Argus-Press and a page at Wired.com. But:

  • About the Argus-Press coverage:
    • See Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard; expand the "Quick introduction to common criteria" box. You'll see we demand "coverage of a kind that shows actual wider interest by credible published sources, not [...] the kind of occasional, routine or local coverage that any business or person might get now and then". Well, this coverage is just local coverage.
    • Worse yet, User:JamesBWatson and I think it's press-release-derived POV churnalism. I saw not one word of coverage from those who believe that, for example, young adults should be free to browse sex-ed websites without being monitored.
  • The Wired.com page fails WP:SIGCOV. (Non-Wikipedians: See here.)

Subject has three current Google News hits, but none meet WP:SIGCOV. The Courrier International hit includes just two sentences of coverage. In the two other hits, authors do nothing but cite statistics published by Covenant Eyes. I didn't see anything really impressive in Google's archives either.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I really wanted to say Delete, but a Google Scholar search shows at least one patent citation, and quite a few scholarly references, so unfortunately, while the article is written like PR (please, someone else fix that), they appear to have some notability in their sad little field. —Geoff Capp (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions:
  1. How can the company's patents meet WP:IS?
  2. Also, we can't decide based on hitcount alone. Which Google Scholar hits meet WP:SIGCOV? I am not convinced that even one does. Does your institution provide full-text access to the articles by Behun RJ et al. or Harkins JW? How much coverage of Covenant Eyes does each include?
  3. The POV material in the article has been there since it was added a full year ago,[2] and still, nobody's rewritten it. I propose that, since it's been a year, the article be deleted. If someone wants to fix it, they need only contact the closing admin, get the article undeleted into the WP:Article incubator, then fix the article. So, I wonder if you'd please consider changing your vote to "delete for now"?
I have sent you a Talkback notice. Please do reply when you have time.
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this is helpful, but I was doing remote support on a end users computer and came across this software. I had no idea what it was, I was thinking it could possibly be a virus or something. This article was the top hit on Google and was useful. If we can get some better citations, I think it's worth saving. People are using this software (in my limited anecdotal evidence). KLoverde (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi KLoverde. If someone does find some acceptable references, we can always undelete the article later. Or better yet, we can recreate it from scratch, free of PR-speak. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As well as the local press coverage, it received significant coverage in Christian media. Additionally there are briefer mentions in Wired and Salon and other tech news sites of less renown. Google Books shows mentions in various Christian-interest books[3][4][5] that I don't exactly have the qualifications to evaluate, but e.g. Thomas Nelson (publisher) is a very long-established and major Christian publisher, and Xulon Press is at least notable. An alternative would be a merge to Accountability software which is a very short article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. Do any of the "briefer mentions" on tech news sites meet our significant-coverage threshold? If so, which mention? (I shall now send you a Talkback notice to point you here.) Also, dear all: Are religious publications normally considered reliable for establishing notability? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are PLENTY of articles out there establishing the notability of this website and its services if one simply knows where to look. Here's a sampling:
Clearly, the subject does not run afoul of notability guidelines. JayHubie (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Post, Sun-Gazette, and NBC News stories all fail WP:SIGCOV. I'm pretty sure the State Journal-Register article does too. If you find any article that includes significant coverage (IIRC one lengthy paragraph or more about Covenant Eyes), please let us know. I shall now leave you a Talkback template in order to point you here. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are finding excuses to reject these acceptable sources that establish the company's notability. JayHubie (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is not an "excuse": it's been part of our inclusion guidelines since at least 2008. Please see WP:WHYN for why SIGCOV is required. If you've read WHYN and you still are unhappy, feel free to complain at WT:N. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are using it, yes, it's an excuse. SIGCOV is a guideline, not a policy. Even if you are right, which you are not, the notability of Covenant Eyes would fall into the realm of "unclear notability," not immediately into "no notability." The notability guidelines state that "[f]or articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." It looks like you jumped immediately to the deletion nomination and are using whatever excuse you can find to justify it. JayHubie (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more sources that aren't press releases found through Google News:
Independent.ie
CNET
New York Times
an ABC News affiliate
University Daily Kansan
Like I said, there are plenty of sources that meet even your absurd demands. JayHubie (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Post and Sun-Gazette articles merely cite statistics provided by Covenant Eyes. The NBC and Times articles each include only half a sentence of coverage. The CNET article includes zero coverage. None meet SIGCOV. By linking to them, you have wasted people's time. Please, check for SIGCOV before you link to an article.

The ABC article is just WP:LOCAL coverage. The Kansan article probably fails WP:RS. The Independent article is really mainly about an Irishman named Colin Howell. It includes just six sentences of Covenant Eyes coverage. I'm not sure it meets SIGCOV either. Plus, some of those six sentences may have been based on the lead section of our Wikipedia article as it was written at the time.

I suspect I shall decline to comment on future links you post unless you first tell us how many sentences of coverage they include.

Notability is also only a guideline. Exceptions may apply, though please ask an administrator before you try to apply one.

This Wikipedia article has perhaps failed WP:NPOV for most of its existence. Long before AfDing the article, I tried fixing it. But a Covenant Eyes employee came back again, silently removed Template:Notability, and resumed adding advertorial content. This POV damage remained in place for over six months. Perhaps nobody really cares about the article.

I don't have time to maintain the article. It should be deleted or merged. If it's deleted, well, deletion doesn't have to be permanent. If someone steps up and volunteers to watchlist it, to enable watchlist email, and to guard it against POV edits, then they can try asking the closing admin to undelete it again.

When an editor more experienced than you makes a !vote or cites a guideline, please assume that they know what they are doing.

P.S. I think that Covenant Eyes is useful software, that it serves a useful purpose, and that it helps society. I just think the article should be deleted or merged. If you have any questions about the preceding two sentences, please ask them on my talk page, not here.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the least bit surprising. Oh, well. Whatever. I've had my say and I don't need to convince you anyway. That's up to whoever decides to delete or not. JayHubie (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is purely promotional. It's a good case of CSD G11 for my money. Perhaps there are sources from which a neutral article can be written, but this is clearly not it. -- Y not? 15:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are either non-independent or passing mentions. Miniapolis 14:33, 10 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covenant_Eyes&oldid=1069230129"