Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squiz (3rd 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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squiz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:Before comes up with no WP:RS. Can't find anything to show this passes WP:NCORP. Previous AfDs were closed with “no consensus” because of keep votes that involved adding 1 or 2 extra sources. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is almost completely self serving. Reference 6 doesn't even refer to Squiz product. Ref 9 inaccessible, password controlled. Teraplane (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Teraplane your contributions here are appreciated however please observe the guidelines regarding sources: "Ref 9 inaccessible, password controlled" is NOT a legitimate complaint: sources are NOT required to be "accessible", as has been pointed out to you on several occasions. Cabrils (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Cabrils I presume you are referring to WP:OFFLINE such as printed references which I understand. This is actually an online reference. It is only available to registered site users for this product, a much smaller audience than even a paywall protected site and not accessible to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. So it doesn't help to validate the articles content. Also in highlighting the poor referencing, previous AfDs were closed with “no consensus” because of the addition of extra sources. So in this case I think the quality of references bears heavily on the case for deletion. For this AfD, suggest you need to look at the wider article context rather than a very literal interpretation of WP guidelines. Teraplane (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it totally fails WP:NCORP. It has a handful of articles from 2 different publications and 1 source from its own website. There is no independent content containing original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject that have been found online, and none of the sources in the article meet the criteria. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Megtetg. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:10, 27 March 2021 (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.