Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ONVOLO


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ONVOLO

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable social network company. The only decent source constitutes coverage of the founder, not the company. The other sources consist of a press release and the company's own website. Nothing else of significance can be found beyond the company's own marketing presence. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The company was mentioned by Businessweek, it appears to be a significant effort (drawing top talent), and the website, android app, and IOS app show the company is of significant capabilities.  I understand it is a startup, but I think this is clearly WP:N.Casprings (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Several WP:RS are covering this company. They include:
 * https://finance.yahoo.com/news/onvolo-app-brings-back-trust-120000326.html
 * http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2107941
 * http://www.kctv5.com/story/26221163/onvolo-app-brings-back-trust-to-online-interaction
 * I think this further strengthens the case that the subject and article meet WP:N.Casprings (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. A mere mention in Business Week doesn't establish notability. Furthermore, every single one of those references you list is a press release. Yahoo and Digitaljournal even designate the source as PR Newswire (meaning the original source is ONVOLO), and kctv5 says the source is ONVOLO itself. Self-published sources are not acceptable to establish notability, and neither are trivial mentions. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A press release picked up by a WP:RS is still a WP:RS reporting on something. Companies use press releases and those releases are picked up by the press.  It happens for all kinds of products.  However, the fact remains that three WP:RS saw the significance of the company and reported on it.Casprings (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mixing coverage with publishing: if reliable source publishes press release, it is still a primary source – press release author, not a secondary source – publisher. Lack of editorial oversight (press releases are published verbatim) disqualifies these sources right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly so., please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, particularly the fourth bullet. "Significant coverage" is required from independent sources. A press release is not an independent source, and therefore not eligible to use for notability assessment. If you can provide multiple sources that are simultaneously reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage (not trivial mention), then I am happy to withdraw this AFD nomination. However, I have found nothing to suggest that this company is notable. The founder may be notable, but remember also, notability is not inherited. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Maybe it's just too soon. The company was only founded last year so it's not surprising it hasn't achieved notability yet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (message)  @ 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per above arguments. I really doubt this company is notable. --I dream of horses (T) @ 07:10, 26 August 2014 (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.