Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oogwave


 * 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 is some sentiment this should be redirected to the current owner, but nobody seems to know who that is, so for now, I'll call this a straight delete. If somebody identifies an appropriate redirect target, it should be recreated as the redirect (and, in which case, a history restoration under the redirect would be appropriate). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oogwave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Likely non-notable software, possible COI/paid creation. The refs are: #1 - Firefox blocks it as site with malicious content (not going to check deeper), #2 unreliable Yourstory story - author is the same blogger, that sourced most of BlackMonk CMS, a second article created by the same editor. #3 is a company listing, #4 is a PR interview with Gaurav Jain (see the deletion log for some background). #5 is a GetApp blog on a thinly veiled marketing website (see their parent company). No in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I see no obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  05:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While oogwave.com doesn't appear to be functioning anymore (the company was acquired) and appears to have few reputable US sources, I was able to find some reliable sources that may indicate notability: Labs incubatee Oogwave offers content collaboration tools and Oogwave sees 3-fold growth in user base in 15 months. Thus, keeping in mind that notability is not temporary, I'd say we can (just) keep this. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While they have a few details, both sources draw heavily on interview quotes and company-provided information, copied verbatim or quoted in the respective articles (see WP:ORGIND last point). If this company has been acquired by another company (do you know by chance which one?), the article should simply be redirected to the new owner - assuming the new owner is notable and has a Wiki-article of course. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. Beyond the article's brief mention of ownership, I can't find much. I did turn up a few articles online comparing this with products offered from larger vendors, but nothing great. There may well be more coverage or information in non-English sources, but I'm not sure that helps us. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks a depth of coverage in secondary sources. Flat Out (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Would say redirect if we knew of the new owners.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:46, 25 October 2015 (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.