Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeVideo


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WeVideo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Several sources removed do to 404, wiki has lost all creditably, and thus not suited for wikipedia, wiki is additionally written as a advertisement as well, which has no place on wikipedia. PetterPanNever (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm finding a lot of sources for this in various sources (which I'm adding to the article now), so I'm wondering if the article could just be re-written to remove any potentially advertising tones? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment As far as sources go, I've found more than plenty and although much of it clusters around the program's debut, there's still a little bit of buzz about the program partnering with YouTube. I'll refrain from voting since I added so much to the article, but this isn't exactly a cut and dry delete here. Hopefully one of the more tech savvy editors can take a look at this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertisement for a website that provides a cloud-based, collaborative video editing platform; and where advertising is an issue, notability is a sideshow.  Even so, TechCrunch and Venture Beat may be reliable sources for facts, but websites of that type cannot elevate a commercial business into an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to admit that I was worried that the majority of the stories about this website were predominantly about its release. Eh, I tried my best but I had doubts about it actually getting kept. No biggie, if it gets notable enough later on it can be readded.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and copy sources here. The article as it is can't stay, though the topic seems to be somehow notable. Let's see, whether anyone but advertisers is interested in creating an article on the topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dmitrij indicates that the subject of this article is suited for inclusion, but this article is somehow not. Barring criteria for speedy deletion (spam, copyvio, attack page), all pages with a subject suitable for inclusion should be kept. This is the very foundation of a wikipedia. Improve what you can, keep everything that can be improved. I interpret Smerdis' rationale as 'it meets all standards, but it's just not suited for inclusion in an encyclopedia' I have often seen this argument from him, which I think comes from the idea that companies that haven't shocked the world shouldn't have articles on wikipedia. I certainly don't agree with that, and I don't think there is consensus, or even a majority for this point of view. Sources to establish notability are decent (I only looked at the TechCrunch and CNet articles, and together they easily demonstrate notability), and I see no reason to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are not only the text, but also an editing history. FWIW, this editing history should be deleted, and the article has its right to stay only if and when is rewritten and the editing history is blanked. This is best achieved if this article is deleted and new one is written from scratch by someone who cares the topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't the history stay? Is it copyvio? If so, just link from where, and I'll delete the infringing revisions in the history straight away. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an example of how articles should not be written: it intermixes the topics (infobox is about software, most of the article is about company), documents deals and renaming, contains the section named "Awards"... Actually the fact that it passes WP:NCORP is more of Wikipedia's failure, as the only fact that is evident from all the references is that this company failed to impact anybody except its employees in any significant way and doesn't deserve any mention at all. Still, as we are bound by the policy, all we can do to address the problems noted above is by deleting this low-quality article and leave the sources here for someone willing to write something at least barely encyclopedic on the topic could easier find them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not all we can do to address the problems noted above. We can also keep the article, and work from there. Also, we are obviously not bound by policy, apart from possibly the pillars. I strongly oppose your opinion (which you present as a fact) that the company doesn't deserve - whatever that means - any mention. Your assessment that this company has no significant impact on anybodies life is both irrelevant, and, unless you have performed significant sociological research on the impact of this company on peoples live, guesswork at best. I don't think you have presented any arguments for deletion other than that the article is badly written, and that you believe that subjects that have not had significant impact on peoples life other than those people employed by the subject should be deleted, for which there - I'm fairly sure of that - is no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My assessment that this company has no significant impact on anybody's life is not a guesswork; it is an assumption based on the lack of sources allowing to make the opposite conclusion. And two of the core content policy (WP:V and WP:N for this matter) doesn't allow me to make the opposite assumption. That is: unless we have proof that this business did impact the history of computing we have to assume that it is not notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources applied by User:Tokyogirl79. When seen together, several sources satisfy my view of IRS and GNG. LA Times, PC World, SVBJ? I'm not seeing anything to dislike. Bad-faith nomination too. Nominating account seems to be here solely for the purpose of nominating this article, and the Oslo ip associated with this account has done little but de-source this page. BusterD (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Smerdis of Tlön Eiad77 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2012 (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.