Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IP2Location

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP2Location (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only a passing mention in Wired – Thjarkur (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has WP:SIGCOV as it is being used in academic for Computer Science and Security. I found mentions in technical literatures or books published such as Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing GPEN GIAC Certified Penetration Tester All-in-One Exam Guide. – User:Alamak2020 (talk) 6:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH as the applicable guidelines for companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep agree, the nominator is blocked. I landed here randomly and hope I can contribute. Thanks SusanBlin (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Alamak2020. I also found a couple of books which have a section talking about the company: [1] and [2]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but is it good enough to pass WP:NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add, the first book has no information on the company other that saying it is a subsidiary of Hexasoft located in Malaysia and a remote office in Florida - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second is from MSFN Magazine and describes the product with nothing said about the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The problem I see is that the *company* does not meet our notability guidelines for companies/organizations (which is NCORP) but the *product* of the same name probably does. I suggest the article is either draftified so that the topic becomes the product, or the article is Deleted if nobody is interested in fixing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take up this topic and made some changes in the article. IP2Location has played an important part in the history of Wikipedia. Kindly review and give feedback. Mikecameroon (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Draftify I don't see really any hope with the article at this stage. We need to review notability from the beginning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This topic has notability. It has been been cited in more than 700 research and scientific publication from Universities to pass WP:GNG as "Reliable" and "Independent of the subject". I will review and try to edit the article. Mikecameroon (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mikecameroon, you need to look at WP:NCORP, not GNG. Much stricter. See my comment above - perhaps the topic should be the product and not the company. If you're offering to edit the article, please consider the option to Draftify. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the product has been discussed, reviewed, described, etc, in many books and magazines but the topic is about the company and the references therefore must meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Nobody has yet managed to produce a single reference that discusses the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I keep seeing statements to the effect that this passes GNG but not NCORP, purportedly because the standards of NCORP are "more stringent". But looking at NCORP, it appears only that those standards are more stringent in that they demand independent, secondary sources. Someone mentioned its inclusion in a textbook, which sounds like an independent secondary source. Journal articles are independent but may be primary, although some could be secondary (ie reciew articles). NCORP gives an example of substantial coverage that would meet the requirements: "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization". Does this not describe several sources already mentioned? I do not know enough about this subject to feel comfortable voting either way, but I am concerned about clarity with regards to standard guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I'll give you my take on the primary differences. NCORP guidelines are stricter in order to counter "echo chamber" articles and to ensure that "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND) is available in order to determine notability. So, for example, when editors say things like "that's an independent source", they usually mean that there is no corporate connection between the topic company and the publisher and that there's no personal connection between the journalist and the topic company. With NCORP, there is also a focus on "Independent Content" which tends to not get a thorough examination when looking at articles through GNG glasses. There is also an emphasis that a topic company must have an article that provides in-depth information on the actual topic company itself (WP:CORPDEPTH) and not an in-depth review of their product with a one-line description of the topic company. So when you're examining references here, ask yourself whether the reference discusses the company at an in-depth and detailed level and whether the journalist provides their own opinion or presents or one from a third party and isn't simply repeating or commenting on an announcement from the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't seem to have multiple examples of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Thus it fails GNG, which is the only thing that matters. Anyone interested in keeping this article has had more than enough time to find and add such sources. Delete. Anyone who wants to keep it can hold a draft somewhere and if it ever gains significant coverage then recreate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per HighKing or Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 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.