Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetion

Fetion

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

This software seems to be non-notable. Links in the article are nowhere close to establishing notability, and all that I could find on the web is some news wire with trivial coverage – mostly announcements of plans by China Mobile with no in-depth discussion of the software itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Some in-depth coverage of its market share:[1][2][3]--180.155.72.174 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of its market share belongs to China Mobile article – this one is about piece of software, and unless some in-depth coverage of software (as opposed to market wire) is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm confused with your words. The decline of Fetion's market share is closely related to the poor performance of the software, as discussed in these sources. For exapmle:"凭借其PC与手机互通，短信与消息的无缝互转功能，并依托中移动庞大的网内基数，飞信发展迅速，至2011年中期飞信活跃用户数接近8270万。在国内IM软件市场，飞信曾跻身前三名。""而在增强用户粘性、引异网手机用户的竞争中，飞信作为中移动的战略产品也发挥了重要作用，但拥有了庞大的用户群，却没拥有良好的口碑，这为日后飞信的衰败埋下了伏笔。""即便在飞信发展迅速时，在很多业内专家看来，飞信作为一款互联网产品并不成功，移动互联网专家王煜全曾表示，飞信就是一个免费发短信的工具，除此之外，还有什么作用。""飞信的衰败与产品本身的问题有关，快速成长之后，飞信又瞄准QQ，希望能在商业收入方面开疆扩土，于是纷繁芜杂的功能被加入，越来越多按钮仅为收费而存在。""飞信基础功能则停滞不前甚至后退，PC端越来越臃肿，手机端飞信的不稳定和消息的延迟有目共睹。"(taken from the first source) I wonder whether you've read the provided sources in detail, or maybe I have to know what's the expected "discussion of the software itself".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market share does not speak of particular features, user interface, development history of this software, or at least anything that would allow to distinguish it from other instant messengers. See this for example of coverage that would count for WP:GNG purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarkoff:If all that required is "particular features, user interface, development history of this software", I can provide more sources.[4][5][6] In my point of view, the reception of the software, which is usually shown by its market analyse, is more important than its function, just as a book review weighs much more than a plot summary.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these seem to be OK. Still, I am not sure whether the topic may be considered notable if it was not found worth mention in any English sources at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English per GNG.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is ambiguous on this topic, actually: non-English sources can contribute to establishing notability, but it does not state that non-English sources alone can be sufficient. At the same time, coverage limited to particular language indicates lack of notability outside the country where this language is used. I don't think that "notable in country XYZ", even if XYZ is large and important country as China, is equal to "notable". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention by serveral national sources is enough. See WP:AUD--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products. If we were discussing China Mobile, I would happily accept this argument, because Chinese telecom company is naturaly limited to the country and national sources are OK. Instant messaging applications are international by their nature, so national sources are not enough for this kind of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability threshold with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. There is no requirement that references are in English, and the argument that because it is only of national interest is fallacious. There are many Western topics that have no coverage in Chinese sources but that does not make them non-notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philg88: You've missed the point: unlike most products communication software is inherently international. Notable Chinese brick and mortar business will definitely be worth mention if several Chinese only nation-wide sources will cover it, but the lack of coverage of instant messaging software that is by its nature supposed to be used worldwide means that this software in not notable outside the area of coverage. At least to date this worked as a rule worked for Russian IM software: mail.ru Agent was deleted for the very same reason and Yandex.Messenger was never created. I don't really get why any bias towards China must be in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Dmitrij, but I don't think I have. There are multiple national sources with in-depth coverage of the topic. As far as the Chinese IM landscape is concerned, the idea of a global messaging service is anathema to the powers that be. Since China Mobile is owned by the government, it is in their interest to restrict the service to China so you won't see any outside coverage due to non-availability. See WeChat for an example of Chinese censorship of IM products. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Philg88: To my understanding, this makes Chinese government-controlled IM products inherently non-notable, though it is worth explanation in instant messaging. FWIW these days nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services (mail, IM, storage/backup, news reader, etc), and I don't see how Wikipedia benehits from having numerous articles on nearly identical entities with no chance of more or less comprehensive individual coverage even in abstract distinct future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services but few of them gain in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The history and feature of these services differ from each other, thus they can be described in different ways.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Communication software is not inherently international, since they can be limited by ISP or the government, just as other products can be limited by the company which manufacture them. Take fetion as a example: It can work only through China Mobile's network. If government-controlled IM products is inherently non-notable, can we regard all the companies or products in North Korea as inherently non-notable? Indeed WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products in the same way. IM product is not something special. WP:AUD says "at least one regional source is necessary. If a product has received sufficient coverage in multiple national sources, it's clearly notable. It's the sufficient (non-trival) coverage that makes one topic distinguishes from another. --180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, later today I will expand the article with the sources you've provided. I would kindly ask you to provide more reliable sources to make sure I could describe it as thoroughly as possible. And then we'll se whether this description would allow to distinguish it from off-the-mill instant messanger. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, I see no indication that you understand Chinese, so I'm not quite sure how you intend to address the referencing. The sources don't need to be cited in the article, they just need to exist. And they do. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]