Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vzaar


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vzaar

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Vzaar is not notable enough for an entry - this is merely an advert containing promotional language, written by the company. Clivewoods713 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:CORP not notable - sources are either generic (link to ebay listing policies and link to encoding.com for example) or links to short copy/paste articles on non-notable blogs. Entry is marketing copy, non-objective and appears to only exist to provide back links to vzaar sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Guardian, BBC and iddictive refs appear to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Needs rewrite to be encyclopedic rather than promotional in tone and focus, but that's not an argument for deletion. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The BBC article is a press release copy/paste from 2007! This is not a notable product, and the vast majority of updates and article creation were by 2 members of the staff of vzaar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)  — Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * FYI, your nomination of the article for deletion in the first place documents your position that it should be deleted, and entering a separate delete !vote isn't appropriate. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is blatant commercial content. Ref [3] for example is totally irrelevant and is simply a link to their encoding provider. Vzaar is not notable and this article should be a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.10.192 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) — 86.31.10.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. This one's easy.  A Guardian UK article about its involvement with eBay and a second, not as strong but still good confirming citation clearly satisfy the criteria for notability based on reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep References to BBC and Guardian are certainly good enough as WP:RS already. Not sure about Iddictive but I found this cnet article which for me establishes notability via WP:GNG. I might crack on with tidying up the article. Bigger digger (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Issues seem to have been addressed. — Duncan What I Do / What I Say 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Yep, the article has undergone some heavy pruning and gained a source for notability that I pointed out above, per this diff. I wonder if I can approach vzaar for payment! Bigger digger (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (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.