Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeviceAtlas

Add links
From 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. The validity of the sources provided have not been successfully argued that they meet our notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeviceAtlas

[edit]
DeviceAtlas (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)

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:CORP or the GNG. Loads of coverage from multiple independent sources including references to five books on web design. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawelpiejko (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources cited and others I could find are press releases/announcements, routine coverage, unreliable, and/or don't cover DeviceAtlas in-depth. WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I disagree, there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage, and even if you don't find them "substantial", the WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple independent sources who wrote about DeviceAtlas and this coverage is not "routine coverage". If you search "deviceatlas" in Books.google.com you'll get 612 results. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas The book "Programming the mobile web" contains an in-depth analysis of how DeviceAtlas works, p. 324-326. [1] An even longer analysis can be found in "Beginning Smartphone development", p. 111-123[2]. Other notable examples of books where DeviceAtlas is covered include: "Professional Mobile Web Development with WordPress, Joomla! and Drupal", "Social Media Marketing For Dummies", "HTML, CSS, and JavaScript Mobile Development For Dummies", "iPhone and iPad Web Design For Dummies". You can find them all in Google Books. Examples from the web, other than then ones listed in the entry, include: nooshu.github.io[3], The Whir[4], an academic paper from Universidade do Porto, Department of Computer Science[5], DZone.com[6], GSMArena[7], PhoneArena[8], and a lot more. — Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firtman is not an in-depth analysis; there isn't any analysis. It doesn't have any more information than I would expect to find on the official website: pricing, features, available data. Frederick also isn't an analysis. Nooshu is a blog, so it is not a reliable source. The Whir is a press announcement. Queirós, DZone, GSMArena, and PhoneArena do not have in-depth coverage, mentions only. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Firtman is not an in-depth analysis;" --> This is very subjective. Now you're claiming that a good few pages on a subject in a book(!) is not a substantial coverage -- this is very odd. The fact that Firtman uses information similar to what you think he was able to find on the website at the time of writing doesn't make the source unreliable or less substantial. However, even if this is true, again WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There is enough books and web articles that talk about DeviceAtlas to establish notability here. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Firtman, Maximiliano (2013-03-15). Programming the Mobile Web. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 9781449334970.
  2. ^ Frederick, Gail Rahn (2010-01-14). Beginning Smartphone Web Development. Apress. ISBN 9781430226215.
  3. ^ "Using the DeviceAtlas API with WordPress". nooshu.github.io. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  4. ^ "Nginx Web Server Adds Device Detection at Server Layer with dotMobi DeviceAtlas Module". The Whir. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  5. ^ Ricardo Queirós and Mário Pinto. "Using Mobile Device Detection Approaches to Augment the Accuracy of Web Delivery Content" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  6. ^ "Screen Size: Bigger Isn't Always Better". DZone.com. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  7. ^ "Apple's iPhone web share shrinks, MacBook sales grow". GSMArena. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  8. ^ "Analyst says Apple iPhone 7 "will disappoint"". PhoneArena. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  • Keep : Pretty well known and has been around a long time, plenty of references to their data around the web, just do a search eg http://mobileadvertisingwatch.com/worm-in-the-apple-iconic-devices-actually-drop-in-market-share-in-many-countries-24028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.96.59 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow me to state exactly what is happening here; the first vote states WP:CORP is met given the sources, but even the sources themselves are not entirely acceptable. The sources include simple PR links, take the phonearena.com for example, which not only lists "report" at the name header, but the last sentence says "information given by DeviceAtlas", essentially a press release! The other sources listed even include elements of this, so we cannot blindly confide they were not either paid PR or PR supplied by the company itself. The Keep vote above my comment here then actually states "Google it and you'll see" instead of substantiating their own comment with analysis of why, how and where it can be kept and improveed; especially with these stated concerns including about PR. The first Keep vote then states afterwards from WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", but an article containing PR or otherwise advertising is always still open and able to be deleted if the PR concerns outweigh or otherwise becoming outstanding. Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR. The article seemingly goes to specifics about what the product is and then how to use it; the books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sources you mentioned, such as PhoneArena, GSMArena, DZone, TheNextWeb, Ubergizmo, etc. are not "simple PR links" -- These are independently written articles commenting on DeviceAtlas data (yes, data released by DeviceAtlas, and this isn't something unusual -- companies release reports and other information, and then media post articles commenting on what they receive). A "simple PR link" (copy/paste) would be this -- http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160815005070/en/Airpush-Chooses-DeviceAtlas-Provide-Device-Awareness-Mobile There's a huge difference. There are plenty of other sources apart from these ones, including books I linked to before, which are obviously independent even if you don't find them substantial (e.g. the "For Dummies" series). "The books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves" ---> And what's wrong with a source being a guide? A guide can be a perfect proof that the entry's subject is notable, given that people write books on how to use it, what to use it for, how much it costs, what it takes to implement it, etc. "Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR" --> Every single coverage on a company/product used as a source on Wikipedia has "PR risks". And yet companies/products are covered on Wikipedia. In this light, the "risks of PR" is not a sensible argument in a discussion regarding a commercial product. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : A couple of points on the noteworthiness and issues raised with depth of sources. There are a great many independent, scholarly, citations of DeviceAtlas in a whole range of peer-reviewed books on the topic of web development for mobile, and other topics relating to web design, programming and marketing. Many more references than were included in the initial article, so some of these should be added. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas#q=deviceatlas&tbm=bks&start=10
    DeviceAtlas data plays an important role in one of the most important web analytics platforms Adobe Marketing Cloud (and by extension the very large corporations who use a proprietary web analytics solution instead of free analytics solutions such as Google Analytics) - the argument here is not for inclusion by the reference to Adobe, but by reference to the fact that DeviceAtlas' data is being used to interpret the devices behind many millions of web requests every day in a Gartner magic quadrant listed platform. https://marketing.adobe.com/resources/help/en_US/insight/dataset/c_deviceAtlas_update.html
    There are many notable integrations and hooks available for DeviceAtlas including Varnish (software) https://www.varnish-cache.org/vmods, NGINX https://github.com/Sydsvenskan/opportunistic-device-detection and HAProxy which are all widely distributed.
    Access to the device data is open and free via the deviceatlas.com website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanncha (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Flanncha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I must agree with User:JJMC89's analysis here; while there are sources they are either not reliable, not substantial coverage, or not independent. This is no commentary on the quality of the product, but I don't see anything more out there than the standard marketing copy of any corporately developed IT product. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:33, 3 October 2016 (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/DeviceAtlas&oldid=1089516113"