Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZUVVI


 * 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 per author request and lack of evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ZUVVI

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product by company official. I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is agreed that it is hard to find information on Zuvvi with a simple Google search - though other sources exist and are being listed it will take time. However, as the Wikipedia editor seems set on deleting this page before completion and we are a not for profit that cannot spend time arguing the toss, coupled with the fact the Wikipedia editor has no proper knowledge of how Open Source BSD licences work and seems somewhat annoyed I have decided to let the whole go and let the page be deleted rather than complete it with details being supplied from and contributions by independent sources. I shall remove all reference from WP immediately and hope for a better informed group in the future. May Buddha's Light shine on you all. Aeomer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The licensing question is not at issue here, only the notability is. If you think notability can be demonstrated given a little more time, I think userification would be a good solution. Haakon (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence at all of notability in article, and I have found none. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per JamesBWatson and WP:CRYSTAL. It looks like the claim is that it "may" release a version that is notable, which might mean a new article next year, but not now.  LotLE × talk  19:41, 27 January 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.