Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotjar: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Hotjar: indent |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* You literally removed several sources with edit summary like "{{tq|One word mentions are not rrs}}"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotjar&diff=947338932&oldid=947338786] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? [[User:Karieol51|Karieol51]] ([[User talk:Karieol51|talk]]) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
* You literally removed several sources with edit summary like "{{tq|One word mentions are not rrs}}"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotjar&diff=947338932&oldid=947338786] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? [[User:Karieol51|Karieol51]] ([[User talk:Karieol51|talk]]) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject.[[User:ThatMontrealIP|ThatMontrealIP]] ([[User talk:ThatMontrealIP|talk]]) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
::See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject.[[User:ThatMontrealIP|ThatMontrealIP]] ([[User talk:ThatMontrealIP|talk]]) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Why should the article be deleted instead of editing it with proper sourcing. The company seems to have enough sources to confirm claims. One is: https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Hotjar |
|||
Revision as of 00:19, 29 March 2020
Hotjar
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hotjar (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)
After removing a lot of puffed-up, one-word mentions of the ocmpany used as sources, and after doing a search, I can only conclude that this is an WP:NCORP fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- You literally removed several sources with edit summary like "
One word mentions are not rrs
"[1] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? Karieol51 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why should the article be deleted instead of editing it with proper sourcing. The company seems to have enough sources to confirm claims. One is: https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Hotjar
- See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)