Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Professor


 * 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 keep. Company is sufficiently notable and article has references to prove it. Edit wars are not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; rather to request protection. Nominator has made all of 50 edits since joining Wikipedia on June 23, primarily to article, talk page and this AfD. Assuming good faith, he may not fully understand policy yet. Daniel Case 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Video Professor

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not satisfy the notability guideline. This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Masaimara 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known for their advertisements, and there are quite a few references in the article. Corvus cornix 06:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Advertisement alone is not a criteria for notability. Also an edit war has been started by the company employees(but that is not my reason for nomination). Please also see the discussion of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * — Masaimara (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Cornix, Please read the Full discussion of this page and you will understand the reason for few edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep notable. There are commercials on TV for this program.-- Sef rin gle Talk 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete &mdash; the company is not very notable, rather borderline, and the article is bound to be plagued with POV problems. Not very much useful content currently in article, may as well delete to avoid wasting everyone's time (protecting then calling sysops to make trivial edits especially). --Draicone (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lame but notable: that references section is pretty darn convincing. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Not worth wasting people's time to work on this. LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How is it "not big enough"? There are plenty of references and sources to make it notable, and I assume you're using the terms as synonyms, since a small staff doesn't mean anything in the deletion process. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page was obviously started as a soapbox.  Tried to re-do article folowing Microsoft article's example, however got into an editing war with some users.  Too much time is being spent on this, so I vote to just delete it and stop the non-sense. Skporganic 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. History and Talk pages show that the two main contributors have agreed to file for deletion rather than continue to argue. I think its history of consumer complaints (including my mom's!) could meet the notability requirement but who is going to create the necessary balanced article? Canuckle 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep although some cleanup is necessary. I can imagine a lot of users looking for an article on this after seeing the ads. I can imagine circumstances where deletion is preferable to wasting everyone's time fighting, but in all of those cases the subject of the article was ill-defined or so POV that coming to an agreement was impossible. (I'm thinking of articles with titles like "Allegations of..." or "List of (some subjective thing)". There's no reason that we can't write a neutral article about a software company. GabrielF 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Edit wars aren't really a good reason to just give up on an article that meets guidlines as encyclopedic, whether through fame or infamy. This is a notable, yet widely criticized and derided company according to many of the references used. Obviously some of the references don't cut it, particularly the one to the companies own webste, but this really needs cleanup and watching, not deletion.Jim Miller 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The annoying commercials are omnipresent on US TV, and the company is well known. The article has a number of references about the company and its business practices, so WP:N appears to be satisfied. Deletion is not always the solution to edit wars between people with different points of view. Edison 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete page is not suitable for wikipedia. Company is not very notable.  Crrockford 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Crrockford (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Although the founder's bio was deleted in 2006 following this discussion, I suggested keep there, due to the obvious ability of someone to advertise themselves to notability. Video Professor has done that. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Size of company is not the sole determinant of notability. Just the controversy about this outfit appears sufficient to make it notable. --orlady 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up/resolve conflicts. There are enough references that notability is asserted, and I'm sure there are more out there due to the popularity and name recognition resulting from Video Professor's commercials. When judging a topic on its encyclopedic merits, I don't think any of the arguments, edit wars, etc. are relevant -- notability isn't subjective and how the article is written is a subjective way of judging a topic. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (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.