Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooket

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blooket[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability not indicated. There are a bunch of "how-to" guides—which I don't find convincing for WP:NCORP notability—and various reviews of the product, but nothing about the company itself. There are [1] and [2], but these are not independent. Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Per a clarification with the article creator, NCORP is the correct SNG to use here. Per the source assessment below none of the sources count towards WP:GNG.
However, pending the outcome of a discussion between the article creator, User:VickKiang, and myself, I could be convinced to change this to Draftify on the proviso that the article is re-written with the primary topic changing to the website of the same name instead of the company. There are potentially sufficient sources that it could meet WP:NWEB already present in the article, with one more identified on the creator's talk page. But even such a refactoring may be borderline non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as a company. No prejudice against recreation as a article about the website if good sources can be found. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 23:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sideswipe9th
https://blooket.github.io/popularity#:~:text=Current%20Figures,almost%205%20million%20registered%20users.	Github page belonging to the company	Self published entry on page controlled by company		✘ No
https://www.the-next-tech.com/entertainment/blooket/		? Site claims to be a "news and article publishing portal", but the article ends with "That’s all in this blog."	Most of the content is on how to use the site. There is nothing about the company with the same name.	✘ No
https://www.techlearning.com/how-to/what-is-blooket-and-how-does-it-work-tips-and-tricks			As with the previous source, content is about the product not the company. It could likely demonstrate SIGCOV for the site however.	✘ No
https://leedaily.com/2022/04/16/blooket/		Though undiscussed, source does appear to meet criterial for WP:RS, as it has a fact checking and editorial policy. Though it takes guest article submissions, this article is written by a staff member.	As with the previous source, this article is about the product and not the company. Could possibly be used to demonstrate SIGCOV for the product.	✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/inno/stories/profiles/2021/09/14/inno-5-under-25-ben-stewart.html	This is a profile on Blooket's founder, and does not appear to be independent.	Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#Business_Journals_/_bizjournals.com	Content on the company is minimal, only two paragraphs consisting of 91 words, so fails WP:100WORDS	✘ No
https://www.thelostgamer.com/blooket-play/		? Site's former name was GameStyle, which is listed on WP:VG/S as "inconclusive". There's no editorial or fact checking policy listed on the site, so I can't assess if it meets RS criteria.	As with sources 2, 3, and 4, this is an article on the product, not the company. As with source 2, this begins with a guide on how to use the site. Towards the end of the article there is sufficient content about the experience of using the site that it could potentially demonstrate SIGCOV for the product.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per nom and Sideswipe9th if we're looking at WP:NCORP. Neutral if the article is rebranded to discuss about the website instead of the company. There is a discussion at User talk:Darth-Wiki-Man#Blooket, the user stated that It is mainly about the company, but I tried to focus on the website in the way that Kahoot! and Quizizz did. Please feel free to give me suggestions, Thank you! So, if this is a company-related article, notability isn't inherited from a borderline notable product. Current refs- ref 1 is a SPS, refs 2 and 6 aren't RS, ref 2 describes itself as a blog with a poor About us, likewise, this ref has no editorial policies so I'm not confident if it's RS, and it's apparently listed on WP:VG/RS as inconclusive per Sideswipe9th. The rest of the three refs currently available are (generously speaking) generally reliable (one of the refs is decent with a lengthy about us page but I can't find any editorial policies). However, all of these refs discuss the product, not the company itself. If we rebrand the article so that it's about the website, then I'd be at neutral, as there are three refs that discuss the product in decent detail, 1, 2, 3, even though the Lee Daily one is mainly a how-to guide that leans on the routine side and is debatably SIGCOV. However, as the article currently stands, it's mainly about an organisation, thus WP:NCORP is failed. VickKiang (talk) 02:50, 23 October 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.