- 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 arguments in favour of deletion centre around the article failing NCORP (which I believe is the correct SNG, as the article clearly talks about the "brand" and "founding" of the organisation, rather than being limited to the product) and being overly promotional, whereas the arguments put forward in favour of keeping largely only state that the app is "relevant" and that it has "been in the media". Merely being relevant or having a certain number of downloads does not make a subject notable. firefly ( t · c ) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim Pro[edit]
- Muslim Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Discovered this in NPP. Non-notable prayer app, written like an advertisement (see the paid contributions tag). Was somehow accepted by an AfC reviewer. Not convinced by the sources linked on the talk page by the AfC reviewer. I do not think they provide sufficient significant coverage to establish notability. Notice that the name of the account which created this article is the same as the name of the company which owns the app. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is not reliable. Of the first four, there are two trivial mentions, one regurgitated press release from a niche industry publication and one interview-based article. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sure let me assist you with alleviate the concerns brought forth.
- The account under which I had initially started was when I was new to writing in for wiki. So, I had created the username under the company name thinking it needed to be relevant. Than, somehow there was a paid contribution tag that came about with more rigorous guidelines. I had followed through with the guidelines after which.
- The initial comments was that it was advertisement like. I had eventually removed anything that made it feel that way. There is no part of being listed on wikipedia that is meant for any advertisement whatsoever. So, I have no issues deleting or removing anything that is not within guidelines. I will go ahead and further edit the article with anything that feels as such.
- I understand the portion about the sources being not relevant enough. As such, I will edit the sources and the portions of the article that are referring to that portion.
- I am here to abide by the guidelines. I do wish to author more articles and this is a learning platform and these learning moments are great.
- Do let me know if there is anything else besides these that needs changes. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I also, remove the whole portion on features as I am citing the muslim Pro website itself. There is no where else that speaks of feautres. I am good to remove it if it is not within guidelines as that portion might seem very advertorial. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I accepted this draft at AfC based on coverage in the following sources: [1], [2], [3]. In sum, I think this provides a reasonable case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The articles content is written in a way to promote the app, violating WP:PROMO. The page merely discusses the apps features and the reception subsection is just references to generic ratings. The parent company and affiliated managers have no notability - WP:NCORP. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this is a relevant religious and culture-related app. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not on our personal opinions as to if the app is "relevant". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm repealing my delete vote, not because I think the material is particularly worthy or the sources fantastic, but in appreciation of the fairly large scale of this enterprise, the likelihood of much better coverage in foreign language sources, and the very real prospect that this enterprise is only set to grow and deleting the article would be an exercise in futility that would only presage its recreation at a later date. Since delete is not a likely outcome here in any case, best to speedy keep and end the expenditure of community time on the subject.Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Iskandar323 You took the right decision. This is large scale of this enterprise.
- I appreciate your decision. Kyle154 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NCORP here. Coverage of Muslim Pro's selling customer data doesn't contribute to NCORP unless they describe the company in detail, which I'm not seeing in any of [4], [5], etc. There's CEO interviews like [6], [7], but these don't count toward NCORP. Now, foreign-language sources... I'm afraid I can't help there. But I'd err on the side of deletion. Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a product, not the company. WP:NPRODUCT, not the more stringent WP:NCORP, should be applied. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, there are a whole four paragraphs in the Vice article on how the app's data is being hoodwinked. That's also a sign of balance in the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Keep voters need to understand this article and the AFD is not a reflection on a religion. This app may be important to many follows of Islam. Deleting the article does not make the app irrelevant to its users, or diminish its importance to Islam and its followers. The article subject simply does not meet NCORP as coverage while there, is not significant. If this is a super important app to followers of Islam, find an appropriate article and add a sentence or two on the app there in a neutral way. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Passing GNG or NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As written, the article is about a corporate entity, not just a product (to the extent that that hair can even be split). A piece of software does not autonomously decide to "collaborate with UNICEF", for example. Accordingly, the notability guideline for corporations applies. Muslim Pro is only one of the apps implicated in data harvesting;
Others include a Muslim dating app, a popular Craigslist app, an app for following storms, and a "level" app that can be used to help, for example, install shelves in a bedroom
, as the Vice article says. There's enough to warrant mention in an article covering that practice, but the available sourcing doesn't warrant a stand-alone page, and the existing content is promotional. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean delete (again): Clearly a speedy resolution of this was wishful thinking. Having attempted a bit of editing, the combination of weak sources and advert-like writing is a bit grim. This AfD also does not seem to have encouraged any of those voting keep to actually go out there and find better sourcing, which does not bode particularly well for the prospect of any near-term improvement of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PROMO, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:54, 31 July 2022 (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.