Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivvo


 * 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) 03:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Vivvo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable application with no reliable, third party sources (just first party, wiki ones) describing significance. Being a "provider" for one or two notable business does not satisfy inclusion. WP:PROD, which was endorsed by another user, was removed by original article creators with no reasoning. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable software product using Wikipedia for free advertisement. I originally endoresed the prod.  I can find no third party reliable sources.  Additionally,  is likely the Product Line Manager  WP:COI. 16x9 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern really is about the definition of what a "notable or non-notable software application" is, particularly in the case of proprietary systems. If notability criterion is to be applied across the board in this category, many existing articles in Wikipedia should probably be deleted too. For example, why is Expression Engine more notable application than Vivvo? Or, what are reliable third party sources for the entry for Site Foundry. Let's talk about more universal standards before we decide on deleting individual entries. --Mskoric (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid keep argument for afd's. A wider standard has been attempted before  WP:Notability (software) but consensus was sadly against the idea so we must follow the generic guideline and policies, which in this case would not include the addition of Vivvo.  16x9 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The complexity of the process of judging software notability is beyound doubt. The fact that no consensus was reached really highlights my most important objection to deletion of Vivvo, namely that heuristics (e.g. the company is NOT from Palo Alto or it's NOT on TechCrunch) seem to be of greater importance than policies in this case. While the entry would benefit from better editing, it does have several third-party sources cited.--Mskoric (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is non-consumer software, yet another "web content management" package.  The article looks good, but in my mind what this means chiefly is that spammers are getting smarter and learning how to game the system.  Looking at the references discloses nothing other than press releases, links to the official site, and a couple of reviews that look like self-published sources targeted at the content-management software community: those sources may be independent, but they're still the industrial version of local newspaper coverage, and do not confer notability among the general public under the applicable notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 21 April 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.