From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is following examples of other pages within the same category. If you're going to delete this page, then you should also mark Wordpress, Dreamweaver and Flash pages as well.

Please state specifically how the entry qualifies as advertising in a way which is not represented on those other pages. Please note external links to third party websites and supporting data. At no point does the article 'sell' the service which it discusses. It merely states what it is, gives a little background history, and introduces a section for reviews.

--Lexusperplexus (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All three of those articles you mention are written in neutral point of view and have extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. However, more importantly, other stuff exists. The deletion tag here relates only to this article. It will be weighed on its merits, not on the existence (or lack thereof) of articles on similar topics. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And on further review of the article, the text is written sufficiently neutrally that it is not spam. This means it is not subject to speedy deletion under criterion G11. However, see the improvement steps below. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement needed[edit]

While I've declined speedy deletion, I see two major areas that require improvement in the article.

  1. Notability: While there are some assertions of significance, such as winning Seedcamp 2008, it's not entirely clear how major that competition is. Accordingly, there's no clear demonstration that this is a notable web service. IMO, there's enough of an assertion that the article should not be deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7; however, it could easily be sent for deletion discussion.
  2. Reliable sourcing: Other than basekit's website, the only source provided is a review at Download Squad. It appears to be on par with Engadget in terms of reliability. Still, to build a robust article (and demonstrate general notability), citations to other independent reliable sources should be made.

My personal recommendation is that this article be given some time to incubate, but if it's not improved over the next few weeks, it is subject to being nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe is time to delete this article. (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)