Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovico (company)


 * 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. While the company has plenty of indicators of its importance, proper sourcing has not been provided to establish its notability. lifebaka++ 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dovico (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This software company appears to be non-notable.

A number of external references are currently provided in the article, but none of them attest to notability:


 * 1) A review of their software product on toptenreviews.com, which includes a "buy now" button with an affiliate marketing target URL. There is a financial relationship between toptenreviews.com and Dovico, so this cannot be considered a neutral source.
 * 2) A case study about an unrelated software product which was integrated with Dovico. This article does not talk about Dovico in any signifiant way - the word "Dovico" is only mentioned twice.
 * 3) A student masters thesis which used data extracted from a Dovico installation. It does not discuss Dovico itself in any depth.
 * 4) A bachelor student project about construction project management. Its entire coverage of Dovico is this sentence: "Dovico is an industry standard time sheet software."
 * 5) A reference to a 2006 panel discussion which had a Dovico representative present. It does not discuss Dovico at all.

I initially came to this article when I saw it in the speedy deletion list; I recognized the name since I am a very happy Dovico user at work. However when I tried to find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to add to the article, all I could come up with was press releases and a few forum posts.

I therefore believe that Dovico (company) does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and that the article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thparkth,
 * DOVICO meets GNG in terms of coverage. There are now various case studies, all of which either focus on or discuss Dovico at some length or another, all referenced correctly. There is also an About.com (which, again, is a reliable and independent source) review by an independent author, detailing Dovico. There is a blog article detailing Dovico called '7 Time Tracking Tools To Help You Manage Your Time.' Under WP:ORG, it states that "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."." To appear in lists noting it as a top contender in its' software class, various case studies detailing how it has been used in various situations, press releases and information replicated across thousands of websites, in my opinion, shows notability.
 * For that reason, this article does not warrant deletion. It stands in line with not only all other pieces of software in the same league, but in line with all other company pages on Wikipedia.
 * Addition - Another Editor made a revision at 20:48, 2 February 2011 removing the A7 as he believed notability had been asserted.
 * Iammatty (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to my points made above, please explain as to why an article that a genuine effort has been made to prove notability and to remove bias and to stay in line with Wikipedias requirements has been repeatedly hounded from every angle possible, and the following articles have not?
 * * SwipeClock
 * * SyncTime Express
 * * ITimeSheet
 * * True Time Tracker
 * Iammatty (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another notable article added detailing Dovico as a winner of the 2002 KIRA Export-Product of the year.
 * Iammatty (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Further notability. Proof that Dovico is a Microsoft Certified Partner has been added. Link comes from Microsoft's website.
 * Iammatty (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete, advertising: a software company that provides multiple products to small and large companies that have need to track their employee time, expenses and effort for project management, project scheduling, costing, billing or productivity improvement. DOVICO is also a Microsoft Certified Partner. One of many, many "project management" software businesses, each of which imagines that they and their products have the kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance needed to rank an encyclopedia article.  Winning minor and local trade awards does not confer that kind of significance, either.  Thanks for the leads on similar articles, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - the according to the general notability guideline, a subject needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to be considered notable. The About.com source discusses the subject in detail. The paper by Sidenko also discusses the subject with more than just a passing mention (see section 5.7). Thus the article is notable per Notability and WP:CORP. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this may overstate the coverage in the Sidenko paper. The entirety of its coverage of Dovico is the following text:
 * "The data are derived from Dovico Timesheet database. Dovico Timesheet is a project management application. Managers can control tasks assigned for projects, time of each task and expense of projects with Dovico Timesheet application. Dovico Timesheet is based on MSSQL database".


 * This is pretty much the definition of an incidental mention. The about.com reference is a single paragraph in a larger article. It carries some weight but in my opinion it is not sufficient to establish notability.
 * Thparkth (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the Sidenko paper appears to be a university master's thesis, which may not be the sort of publication that confers notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the masters' thesis may be omitted.
 * The subject is one of the five software the About.com's six-paragraph article discusses, and the discussion is more than a passing mention. The information can be extracted without original research, so it is significant per WP:GNG (bullet point No.1).
 * Wikipedia's notability guideline on companies says that "notability can be established using the primary criterion" using "sources ... such as Hoover's". The subject has a Hoover's profile, and I believe that this, along with the About.com reference, is sufficient to establish notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Joshua - the passage you quote from WP:CORP relates to public corporations - not privately held companies like Dovico. Thparkth (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, Hoover's, along with About.com, can be used to establish notability by the primary criteria for notability and/or the general notability guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The About.com issue is arguable, but the Hoover's entry is merely a directory entry and does not constitute "significant coverage". I do not understand your argument that it attests to notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you admit that the About.com article is at the very least arguable in terms of notability? It is not just a passing mention of the company as it appears at the number one spot for "Top Time Tracking Software Programs," showing that the company in itself is well established in its' field. The primary criteria sets out that About.com and Hoovers are deemed reliable sources, and thus the Dovico article is notable. Any other argument is down to a personal opinion as to whether the Dovico page should, in fact, have a place on Wikipedia, as notability has without a doubt been established. Iammatty (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The company has been made notable with various case studies and links detailing where Dovico has been used and how it integrates with other products. They are official Microsoft Certified Partners which, again, has been referenced. There is now a reference to a pending Patent application. The history of the company, which dates back to the late 80s, will soon be updated significantly. A page about Dovico on Microsoft, mentions/company profiles on various reliable sources such as About.com and Hoovers, a Pending Patent application with CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) are all more than enough to show that this company is more than your run-of-the-mill local software provider. References, links to and profiles about Dovico across this wide a base of relevant and trustworthy sources is enough to even establish notability. Iammatty (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The only one of those sources which carries any weight at all for notability is the About.com article. None of the case studies are even about Dovico. Being a Microsoft Certified Partner in no way demonstrates notability by Wikipedia standards - the huge majority of such companies are non-notable. Having filed a patent doesn't demonstrate notability. For a private company, having a profile on Hoovers doesn't demonstrate notability. None of these things amount to "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Every word of that phrase is important!
 * The about.com article isn't about Dovico either, and devotes only one paragraph to the subject. In my opinion it is not "significant" enough to demonstrate real notability. A truly notable company has been profiled in-depth in newspaper and magazine articles, written about in books, or has made a cultural impact; relying on a single paragraph mention on about.com is almost evidence of non-notability.
 * Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the About.com article does constitute significant coverage. The subject "need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:N). Almost 20% of the About.com article is to do with the subject in question, and it addresses the subject directly. This is more than a trivial mention (WP:GNG, bullet point 1). --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would encourage those reading, and especially the the AfD closer, to examine the Hoover's profile and consider whether it is anything more than just a directory entry, and the About.com article to consider whether its 74 words is significant enough to hang the notability of an entire article on. Obviously I believe the answer is "no" in both cases. Thparkth (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also would encourage the AfD closer to examine not just the two articles being discussed here (Hoovers/About.com) but the article as a whole, and the other references listed. To examine the length of work that has gone into creating the article, the rest of the articles referenced throughout the page and to also see that even just the about.com and the Hoovers page attest to notability, being reliable sources. Iammatty (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Just to reinforce the point above, the article provides notability to an extent that a lot of other pages on Wikipedia haven’t. Again, being linked with Microsoft/About.com/CIPO/KIRA shows that Dovico has a long-standing and illustrious history, and as a result, any question as to whether notability has been asserted has been answered. Bellg458 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Bellg458 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per WP:N. Applying for a patent does not make a company notable. About.com is not a reliable source of product reviews. KIRA is specific to New Brunswick. Mention in Daptiv case study is unsubstantial (and doesn't describe the company or identify which product it's about). Sidenko mention is unsubstantial. Guha paper is an undergraduate thesis and therefore self-published. I searched for other sources but didn't find any. It belongs in Wikipedia after there's substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Dovico’s software (old and new) has often been used as reference in articles and papers, that is notable. The software has been mentioned in many “top 10” lists which shows notable success. There is also mention of a Dovico partnership on Reuters as a key development for Intuit Incorporated. --Didia25 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Didia25 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note Smashinghub (the site for the "top 10" mentioned) publishes promotional posts on behalf of advertisers, and so is not an independent source. Thparkth (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage in the Hoovers source is basically a directory listing. The coverage in the about.com source, while nontrivial, has dubious reliability and is not by itself sufficient to allow Dovico to pass WP:N. The Sidenko paper is a passing mention and as a master's thesis, not a source that establishes notability. The other references in the article are either passing mentions or primary sources. A Google News Archive search returns tangential coverage and press releases. I agree with the analyses of and  and concur that Dovico does not pass  Notability and Notability (companies). Cunard (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (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.