Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaventory


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Megaventory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence that it is yet in regular production. The 2016 review says its major product is still in beta.  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 review has a correction in its first comment stating it is no longer in BETA. Following your comment here, I have reached out to the review author to update the post in order to reflect that Megaventory is in full production mode (bear in mind the review post was initially put together in 2014).

Also, note that the product is not only in production but also in notable ranking - as is reflected in the relevant industry metric which is the GetRank. Megaventory is currently #17 in a global market of dozens of similar solutions and it has 30+ reviews in GetRank from an equal number of LinkedIn-authenticated users. This link to getapp.com was in the initial version of the Megaventory article and was rejected by a previous reviewer but I'd be glad to include the link again if you feel it adds to the newsworthiness of the Megaventory article.

Let me know if you have any other concerns you see in the article which can be addressed in the meantime and until the 2016 review article is updated with regards to the BETA mention. Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback which can be used to improve the article. Dathanasiadis (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely advertising with WP:NOT applying, that's all we need. SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the WP:NOT is in reference to What_Wikipedia_is_not and in particular (5) - Advertising, marketing or public relations. All content and corresponding references in the article are verifiable and from notable, third party sources - earlier feedback from other Wikipedia users has ensured this. Indicatively, the references include partnerships with a national ISP (COSMOTE), a multinational tech vendor (NEC), a national app marketplace (Maestrano), an independent review site which has taken the time to write a 3500-word unsolicited review (Merchant Maverick) and others. Please indicate if there are specific concerns with any of the included sources and associated content.

Dathanasiadis (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- being one of 20 finalists in a non-notable competitions for startups strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company / product to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just another start-up with nothing remarkable to be on Wikipedia. Xaxing (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Being #17 among 200+ companies in their market seems notable: https://www.getapp.com/operations-management-software/inventory-management/#getrank Attagb (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2017 (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.