From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A summary of arguments comes down to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hotjar

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

Hotjar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After removing a lot of puffed-up, one-word mentions of the ocmpany used as sources, and after doing a search, I can only conclude that this is an WP:NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You literally removed several sources with edit summary like "One word mentions are not rrs" [1] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? Karieol51 ( talk) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    Why should the article be deleted instead of editing it with proper sourcing. The company seems to have enough sources to confirm claims. One is: https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Hotjar Pilot333 ( talk) 03:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply
    Please read and follow MOS:LISTGAP. {{ Ping}} me if you have questions around that guideline. —  J947 ( user | cont | ess), at 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hotjar is a popular tracker tool that is important - internet privacy concerns, what have you. I havent checked if it fails NCORP but that's irrelevant as the software itself is notable. Run a GScholar for "hotjar" - 451 hits. Run it again for "hotjar privacy concern" 44 hits. Added a link to the article MrCleanOut ( talk) 11:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In my experience, Hotjar is a big name for heatmaps, visitor recordings, user feedback etc. I've used it extensively on my sites so I have first-hand experience with the topic outside of Wikipedia. There are tutorials on it available online, which is often used for WP:SIGCOV. There are 23 pages of Google News results for the search Hotjar. A search on WorldCat also brings up 14 published books. Surely there are enough reliable sources out there to form an article with correct claims to pass WP:NCORP. Pilot333 ( talk) 16:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
    Comment I did that Worldcat search per your suggestion. Do you think "A Usability Analysis of a Serious Game for Teaching Stock Market Concepts in Secondary Schools" is a relevant source, or maybe "Good Practices in the Personnel Management Process"? Both were returned by the search. You also cannot see what the results are talking about. Similarly the Google search returns mostly Hotjar namechecks in a long list of companies "Session Replay Software Market Is Booming Worldwide with Top Key Players – Hotjar, Mouseflow, Inspectlet, Smartlook, Hoverowl, SessionCam..." along with lots of spammy IT promotion blogs. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
    Certainly not claiming all those are relevant, but there's enough to work with to clean up the article. Pilot333 ( talk) 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because AFD is not cleanup. Hotjar has multiple in-depth coverage from reliable sources and people who uses trackers knows it very well. The topic is notable enough to have an article about it on Wikipedia. Karieol51 ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please link to the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  J947 ( user | cont | ess), at 03:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft. Proponents of keeping suggest that there is material out there that can be added to support encyclopedic notability. That can be tried out in draft space. BD2412 T 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Why moving to draft when the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines? If there is anything that needs to be cleaned then it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Karieol51 ( talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Reciting the number of hits found on various search engines is not the same as providing specific sources for notability. What has been demonstrated is that further searching might show that the subject is notable. Until that is done, it should go to draft space. BD2412 T 23:51, 18 April 2020 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hotjar&oldid=952043466"