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 no consensus. I do not see consensus, and I doubt further discussion will produce one DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brizzly[edit]

Brizzly (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)

Notability: Launched in 2009; acquired in 2010; shut down in 2012, resulting in an article on a non-notable company and a defunct product. I believe the article has outlived its usefulness. I would argue that the notability was not there at the time of the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as defunct minor tech company. Quis separabit? 19:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out WP:DEFUNCTS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Notability is not temporary.  Nothing has changed since the last AfD, since as per the article the shutdown was in March 2012, and the AfD was in October 2012.  We don't delete topics because they are old, we don't delete topics because they are defunct, and articles don't outlive their usefulness.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the current sources do not suggest notability required for an article; with the product defunct, it's unlikely that sourcing would be improved in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD found otherwise, which means that there is no need to improve the sourcing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the comments were a mixed bag. Consensus can change, too. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was something not mentioned in the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this required? The page very obviously displays the prior nominations, so I assumed it was not needed.

On the comment here, I'm going to quote ST from another thread: "This comment is not keeping to mind WP:CCC especially given the we have changed regarding advertorial and questionable articles since then, and this vote is also essentially WP:LASTTIME, not actually clarifying or stating how the article should be kept now. (I certify that I'm not ST's sock and that we have no connection; I just liked the language :-) ) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It didn't seem to have a major impact in social networking and their only real notability was that AOL scooped them up. Yes, there are some sources but sources alone doesn't make something notable Callsignpink (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have many, many articles about websites and software that are no longer in operation or popular. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory, which means that notability is not temporary. Steven Walling • talk 06:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is essentially a Wikipedia:Permastub that cannot be improved due to the company/product being defunct. I would argue that sources currently listed in the article are not sufficient to demonstrate notability and sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Permastub" is an essay, not a part of deletion policy. Steven Walling • talk 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of the notability guideline. See WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable for both its role as the first web-based 3rd-party Twitter client, and for its acquisition of native iOS Twitter app Birdfeed.
• Keep – Meets Passes WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary. See also: WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. Some additional sources include those listed below.North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I've waited to comment, but considering this seems to be boiling to a closer one, I'll comment and say the listed sources are still not actually as convincing as they could be; they're all either expected coverage or not entirely in-depth to the levels of substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (nom's comment) -- an alternative to deletion could be a redirect to List of Twitter services and applications where Brizzly appears. There's a blurb provided there. That's probably sufficient for this entry. Brizzly may have "list notability" but not sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based upon the existence of suitable sources, not just listed sources, which were provided as examples. More examples have been provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notabilty is not temporary. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is not substantiating themselves with how they feel the commentators' concerns are against the listed sources, thus simply claiming notability is not alone enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Additional sources are available. The ones I provided in my !vote above are examples, but more are available. For example, see these additional sources below, which should be considered in addition to the ones I provided above. As I stated above, the topic passes WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer - Analyzing the links above found that the SFWeekly seems hintingly paid-for PR since it's too close to puffery; the Twitter book, although not first available, seems to only be a guidebook. The 2 TechCrunch sources are simply a few paragraphs talking about the company; the LaptopMagazine source, although informative, as it may be, would still need to be accompanied by better substantial sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – For starters, here's the full link to Twitter Tips, Tricks, and Tweets. It provides background coverage about the topic itself. It is also a preview, and is essentially paywalled, so additional coverage is available in the source that I am unable to view. The SF Weekly article is a bylined news article written by a staff writer, and is not a press release, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article and content within it, in which links are only present for the article itself, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. I see no evidence whatsoever that this source is PR, because simply put, it is not at all. Subjective statements of asserting sources to be public relations content without proof of such claims carries no weight. Conversely, the research I have performed to verify that the source is not PR does carry weight, because it is based upon facts, rather than speculation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- SF Weekly is a free weekly publication of local importance. The book devotes 2 paragraphs to Brizzly: link, plus a picture (I can see it all if I search for Brizzly in the search box in the lower left). So it still feels rather insufficient, and I still advocated a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Twitter services and applications - This is one of the numerous Twitter apps released everyday but was noticed and taken over by AOL and then killed off. Technology companies tends to receive a lot more coverage than others precisely because sources like techcrunch, mashable, gizmodo and numerous others specifically focus on it(which probably contributes to the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia). Which is why it is important to see stuff in perspective. If you look at the sources, the app received a lot of initial publicity in 2009 when it was launched and later in 2010 when it was acquired by AOL. The next bit of news coverage it received was when AOL killed it off. (Some of the coverage btw deals more with the company not with the app; this article btw is solely about the app not the company). If we do the WP:10YT, is this app really significant in the grand scheme of things? For an app with such a short lifespan and whose sole claim of significance is that it was an app for Twitter, I would like a sentence of two of this to remain in the encyclopaedia, but there isn't enough for a page solely for itself (See WP:PAGEDECIDE). A mention at a it of Twitter services helps to improve that page. I would suggest a redirect and selective merge to List of Twitter services and applications. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Twitter services and applications. Lemongirl942 is spot-on with her comments about the over-coverage of tech companies and how that feeds our bias towards writing about them. Yet another flash-in-the-pan twitter add-on which provided a few minor features. A stand-alone article gives WP:UNDUE weight to their importance. One short paragraph in the target list will say everything that's worth saying about them. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 27 August 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.