Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canopy (app)

Canopy (app) (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)

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes an award won by the app. It seems strange to me that this is nominated for deletion, even in light of the arguments made above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any suitable sources (meeting WP:NCORP) for either the app or the parent company unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are all kinds of minor products on wikipedia. Documenting tech history is part of what we use wikipedia for. ShipRush2 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated: "It was rated among the leading parental control apps of 2025 and cited as “best for blocking explicit content." Ovedc (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why delete an article that is well-rounded and provides sourced information about a product that many parents are looking for? Citadelian (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citadelian, I recommend you gain more experience for how it's determined whether or not article subjects have notability before weighing in on any more AFD discussions. The fact that someone out there might find an article helpful at some future time does not influence whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- agree with Turquoise in that there's a hypothetical version of this article which could exist. That hypothetical version is very far removed from what we have now. Current article is written like an advertisement or press release and mostly sources other advertisements, press releases, and SEO spam blog posts. --TonySt (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]