Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live2Support


 * 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. One of the keeps commentators was blocked, the main keep commentator admitted the the sources for this is clearly lacking, nobody else gave policy based rationales. Secret account 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Live2Support

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am completing this nomination for an anon who had replaced a speedy template with an AfD nomination. I have no opinion either way, although I will say that I think the article indicates enough importance (barely) to survive speedy deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep & Comment - This article was nominated for a speedy deletion, and I believe it needs a proper discussion. In my view Live2Support is clearly notable, it is one of the longest serving live chat softwares on the internet (founded in 2003) and there are other articles of a similar nature already on Wikipedia. These similar articles I mention have also survived AfD and are not as notable as this software. A few examples are Kayako, Velaro,_Inc. and Parature. These are only three examples, there are many more that can be found. I researched this heavily before reuploading the article to ensure I wasn't wasting people's time CouncellorStevens (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Parature has been deleted. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google News finds only press release announcements, and Books, a couple of incidental mentions.  References in the article are to tech business directory listings and reviews on review-aggregator sites, none of which are reliable sources and which are too industry-specific to provide notability.  We do have too many articles on non-notable IT businesses, but I will take a look at the 'competitors' as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do believe the references could be better and from more credible sources. As mentioned in the article they serve 22,000 websites. I would say this makes them notable not only in their industry, but as an IT company. For example, LiveChat in my eyes are a very notable company, due to the type of clients they have and also where they have been discussed. However, when you visit their website you see that they say they only serve 4000 people per day. From this angle, unless this entire industry is visited and judged in the same way on Wikipedia, I would say the Live2Support article has to remain on here in some form.CouncellorStevens (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. References in the article are press releases or otherwise not suitbale for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe the biggest issue here is notability, and while the references aren't ideal, I've seen much worse. Simply due to the number of websites/clients this company seems to serve I would say they pass notability 77.97.185.18 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Much worse articles may just mean they ought to be deleted too, and has no bearing on this article. If the number of clients make them worthy of note, the we expect to see significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  I see no such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because an article currently doesn't currently have a number of reliable sources, doesn't mean we should delete it. I believe articles might be out there about this company, as they are with other 'competitors' mentioned above. It seems like quite a common topic to be discussed in the press, due to how commonly this type of software seems to be used by website owners. Looking over the history of the article, it seems that it's been given little chance to be improved. It has also had a number of editors with little history of editing working on it. Therefore I don't think there's enough history/attempts to improve this article. For this reason I think the article should be given a chance to be improved and have improvement notices placed upon it. 77.97.185.18 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Since you think this "quite a common topic", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find the necessary coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'm not suggesting for a minute that I am happy to work on this article to improve it, merely stating my opinion on the article. If an article is submitted to Wikipedia and wrongly listed for a speedy deletion, (which myself, Bongwarrior and CouncellorStevens seem to agree on) then the article should be given chance to be edited an improved based on IMPERFECT. Stating a new article is not notable or reliable enough immediately after upload, indicates that we'd never use improvement notices on new articles. 77.97.185.18 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per CS – SJ + 02:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article must be expanded and further elaboration is required, but I don't think it should be deleted before given the opportunity to fix these issues. - Michael Haephrati (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - In terms of significant coverage, WP:GNG states that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". From what I can see on Live2Support there is no original research. Secondly I agree that the sources could be better in an ideal world. However to say the sources are not reliable, the majority aren't user published, blogs or biased/opinionated references? They are not ideal secondary references from a leading newspaper, but I have seen much worse. CouncellorStevens (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2013 (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.