Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livigent


 * 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 There are no effective 3rd party sources to establish notability. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Livigent

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Footnotes 1 and 4-6 are from the company's own site. Footnote 2 is a press release from one of their business partners. Footnote 3 appears to be from one of their clients. Footnote 7 is a Google search (!). And footnote 8 is a blog posting. So are the first two external links. The third does make passing mention of the product, but the point is that there are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of Livigent. Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SPAM. With no real assertion made for regarding notability, no coverage from independent, reliable, third parties and the tone of the article this is obviously a self promotion. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do whatever it takes to keep Wikipedia free of bias - like those unreliable informations from the manufacturer and non-independent third-party sources. Don't even bother to test them anymore, just count the references, see that they come from the manufacturer, from a Google search and some magazine/blogs, assert they are all biased, manipulative, self-promotional and whatnot. Assert and delete. Don't consider placing [citation needed] or asking for trimming of some paragraphs, just jump to the conclusion that this is WP:SPAM and delete it. No point wasting more time since you already know the truth about this product all too well. while (true) { history; } (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right: this is promotion. Otherwise, how can we call an article that talks about a product, describing its features? As such, I didn't fight the speedy deletion sentence and I won't fight your AfD one.
 * Comment Sulk in a corner if you want to. I'd advise rather that you find the reliable independent sources. Sure, you are promoting the product. But if you can get within Wikipedia's framework for how an article should be, you could get away with it. Others have... This is just a brief mention, but it puts RnD in a position of importance (as I read it): http://www.wall-street.ro/articol/English-Version/65666/Big-Brother-Are-you-monitored-at-your-workplace.html Go on, see what you can find. Make the article just a bit less like a brochure. These discussions usually go on for seven days. I'm sure you can find something in that time. No blogs, no myspace, no linkedin, no forums, in fact, nothing editable (including Wikipedia...). Newspapers (with a translation here if in Romanian, for those of us who can only read it a bit), magazines (but not the PC World one where the author is PC World but the source is RnD), independent reviews, that sort of thing. Otherwise, come back when you've got a bit more exposure. Peridon (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked for secondary sources about this software (and I grok Romanian), but even in the Romanian IT press there's nothing beyond press releases published as news (thankfully attributed as such), and another article in which they announce that they give free licenses to some schools. The wall-street.ro article is not about this product, it's about this kind of software, with only one sentence (a technical opinion) from a developer of this software. That's about all I could find as WP:SECONDARY sources, so it fails WP:N. The company might be more notable, but I won't look for that now. The creator of the article can request userification and transform it in an article about the company, which may have more changes to survive an AfD, based on the other wall-street.ro article, but even that is doubtful as it is a rather disorganized interview with the CEO and not a good source of facts about the company. The same goes for the 8th source of this article, which is another interview with the CEO. Pcap ping  22:10, 22 December 2009 (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.