Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationFlow (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

CreationFlow
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable company, article by SPA who is the COO of the company. While many sources are given, none constitute significant coverage, and I have been unable to find any such. Haakon (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

About notability and Oscarguindzbrg being the COO of the company: This issue was already covered more than a year ago and the decission was to keep the page. See Articles for deletion/CreationFlow "Keep. Business seems to have won several local & national awards, although my Spanish isn't good enough to determine the precise nature of these awards. Certainly looks like it's notable, though. JulesH (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)". During the past few months, some other wikipedia users have edited the page and nobody marked the article for deletion. Besides that, CreationFlow has thousands of users around the globe. Since this is a tool for a specific market, maybe someone working on graphic design, animation, architectural rendering, advertising or post production, may give an opinion on this issue. CreationFlow is part of a new category of tools and yesterday I created an article Online artwork proofing, feedback, review and approval tool to provide information about this new set of tools (which mentions several other tools). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

About the sources, many of them are independent reviews of the tool, including The New York Times (The most relevant ones: http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/04/02/02gigaom-integrated-collaboration-and-project-management-w-10206.html, http://www.centernetworks.com/creationflow-collaboration-tool http://www.appappeal.com/app/creationflow/, http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/reviews/27371.aspx, http://www.denbagus.net/creationflowcom-collaboration-via-the-internet/), news about awards the product won (http://www.iae.edu.ar/iaehoy/IAEtv/videos/Paginas/naves.aspx, http://www.agencia.gov.ar/IMG/pdf/08.07.08_Emprendedores_aprobados.pdf) and links about investments the company received (http://www.iecyt.org.ar/inversores/red-de-inversores-angeles). Oscarguindzberg (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The decision wasn't to keep, there was no consensus. It just defaults to keeping the article. Rehevkor ✉  14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —— Zhernovoi (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete coverage by reliable source is not significant enough to establish notability. Most of the references given are not independent reliable sources. It's also hard to see what is referencing what without footnotes.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage required here. Most of the "references" don' seem to be valid or reliable references at all (blogs, database entries, profiles etc). Rehevkor ✉  15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.