Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flipora

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. No matter what kind of ware it is, it is deemed notable. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flipora

edit
Flipora (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)

There are very few, if any, reliable references for this article. Most news articles on it are barely rewritten press releases. Googling the product brings up many results calling it malware and asking how to remove it. There doesn't appear to be any tech journalists or academics who have looked into the product to ascertain whether or not it is malware, and whether or not the company's bold claim of having millions of users is likely. There aren't even enough references to ascertain what the product is; one reference says it is a search engine while an IP editor on the talk page says it isn't. -- haminoon (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Flipora was previously known as Infoaxe (source). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below are recent Flipora references, btw. Flipora is a content discovery website and iphone app.

Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/01/27/five-new-apps-challenging-facebook-and-twitter-for-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2014/09/12/the-past-present-and-future-of-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhendricks/2014/10/16/are-interest-based-networks-the-way-of-the-future/

Inc Magazine: http://www.inc.com/john-rampton/4-essential-iphone-apps-for-late-2014.html http://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/ai-is-helping-the-internet-know-what-you-want-before-you-want-it.html

Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-announces-next-version-mood-090000328.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-mood-aware-content-discovery-090000755.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-reads-mind-recommends-websites-090000803.html

Despite these references, I still agree that this page should be deleted since the content is extremely out of date, tends to confuse an old product with a new one, has lot of incorrect grammar and also has too many factual errors in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews in reputable magazines, although brief, indicate that, in 2014-15 at least, the app was notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to delete this article on the following grounds:

"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence

Also: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be" Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence

While Flipora has some recent news coverage, this cannot be considered sustained notability. The rules are very clear that "short-term interest" and "brief bursts of news coverage" are inadequate".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly not a notable venue. I came here due to a personal technical support incident provided to a relative. I've left a comment on the article's talk page, reproduced below. Searching online clearly yields a plethora of complaints. This appears to be an obscure company in its lag legs, trying to auto-infect machines to keep its last breaths. In short, this is at best an obscure adware, but mostly likely a self-propagating malware by this late stage at the end of its life. It is not worth listing on Wikipedia, unless someone is willing to scour the web for reliable sources that care enough about it to provide in-depth analysis of this malware's operations. Most sites (including Mozilla, Symantec, and others) simply show people how to remove this. Again, I vote to delete this article. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A relative who relies on me for technical support reported his Firefox home page being switched unbeknownst to him to Facebook (probably due to the Facebook icon shown on the page's tab). Upon closer inspection it was this Flipora site that the home page was set to. I vote for malware status. It's only a personal anecdote. Sorry. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a closer look, I see that Flipora somehow installed itself as an Extension in Firefox (on a MacBook Pro). It comes up with Firefox, and force-create a separate tab with flashing adds, and a search field, every time Firefox launches. The logo looks like a Facebook log, but instead of a blue background color, it has a red bg color. If this is not a malware, I don't know what a malware is. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it is malware makes it more notable, not less. Significant coverage exists in the sources provided by Anupmehra. It passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The malware factor is irrelevant unless it gained further coverage for being discovered to be malware. It has had several paragraphs dedicated to it from Forbes in multiple articles, Huffington Post gave it a reasonably sized paragraph, and The Hindu dedicated a lengthy article to it. Sorry guys, but it clearly satisfies GNG, and you not liking it does not change that. There's also a lengthy piece by PC World, for example. Notability is not temporary, and we have a whole year of it getting coverage from just the sources in the article - one of which was published less than a month ago! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 17 May 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flipora&oldid=1090685269"