Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrivacyTools

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 as most editors feel the provides sources do not satisfy WP:PROUDCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrivacyTools

PrivacyTools (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)

Most sources are unreliable or non-independent. All RS give only passing mention, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I've expanded this article with more relevant information and references and removed all unreliable sources. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK. I want to highlight the sources that the sources #2, #3, #9, and #11 are self-published by the company and fail
  WP:SIGCOV, which states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Note that there are 5 sources given that don't fail the independent or reliable metrics, or obviously don't fail the significant coverage part. From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Edit: From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you so much for your feedback, it is actually very helpful for me. The self-published sources were included to back up some facts in the article and not to establish notability, which I think seems acceptable (

WP:SIGCOV. #6 mentions PrivacyTools in three separate paragraphs, and in each one details the criteria the site uses to make its recommendations in different software categories (which I think is more than merely a passing mention or a brief summary). #5 I'm on the fence about, it brings up the site in 3 separate paragraphs as an authority on VPN providers, but it mostly seems to be referring to sites like PrivacyTools in general, so I don't know if it's specific enough. When I have another moment I will reevaluate the other sources to determine if they establish notability, and I'll try to find more sources that cover the website in-depth. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Source #1 does not constitute significant coverage. PrivacyTools appears once in a table, alongside a long list of other websites, with a brief one-sentence summary. It appears in another table which lists the basic features of a number of similar websites. It then appears as short section (about 30 words) later on. For a 62 page paper, that does not constitute significant coverage. Source #6 is primary - the author, Jonah, describes himself as the administrator of PrivacyTools; the first paragraph contains the phrase at PrivacyTools we recommend.... Source #5 is not significant coverage: it is only mentioned three times and even here, the article is talking about what PrivacyTools recommends, rather than about the website itself. Source #4 is probably the closest to establishing notability but is still not enough. I have had a look myself but cannot find any sources with more than a namecheck. WJ94 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2019 (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.