Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InvGate

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InvGate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep this article on the grounds that InvGate as a organisation "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case the subject is ITSM or ITAM software for the business market, and in particular InvGate is well known as a leader in Gamification in ITSM applications. I cite the following "reliable" and "independent" sources, which include thought leader Martin Thompson and the top industry journal the ITSM Review:

http://www.theitsmreview.com/2012/04/gamification-collecting-coins-service-desk/
http://www.incyclesoftware.com/2013/01/gamification-serious-games-software-development-organizations/
http://www.itsmnapratica.com.br/a-gamificacao-invadiu-nossa-praia/
http://bobjenkins999721446.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/understanding-the-difference-between-gamification-simulations-and-serious-games/
http://www.totalcustomer.org/2012/04/11/gamification-service-delivery/#sthash.c3CdSqOk.dpbs
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/2012-SAM-Tools-Review-1769350.S.100657153

Additionally I would site the following currently acceptable articles within the similar product categories that I consider have had less significant coverage and have less notoriety. Gemini (issue tracking system), GLPI, IssueNet, OTRS, Plain Ticket,BugTracker.NET, Cerebro (software), codeBeamer, FogBugz, Ikiwiki.
Marcel.heys1 (talk)

There's an essay explaining that just because other stuff exists is not a convincing argument to keep another article. I looked at the articles you listed. I nominated a number of them while others clearly meet notability guidelines. On a separate note, those are all product articles and this is an article about a company: "InvGate Software is a privately held Software Development company". You should focus on the notability of this company and nothing else. That is described as having been the subject of 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable, 3) independent secondary sources. The sources you provided are not significant coverage of the company. Not all of them are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the statement that "just because other stuff exists is not a convincing argument to keep another article". The other stuff exists article makes several clear statements that the existence of other stuff is a reasonable precedent. I offer the following quotes from that article

"identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts "
"While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument "
This Page in a Nutshell: "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others"
"Editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid"

I believe it is logical and fair to conclude from this that relating the article in question to other similar articles can indeed form part of a valid argument.

In relation with the notability criteria, I do not agree with the statement that the sources I have provided "are not significant coverage of the company. Not all of them are reliable sources.". In my opinion the coverage is both significant and reliable, especially when read in conjunction with the additional articles already included in the InvGate article (but not listed here).
Any objection on those grounds should be supported by the presentation of both objective and verifiable criteria to rule out a source or particular element of coverage, a "he says, she says" argument is not valid.
Until such criteria are presented and all sources are evaluated, the sources as listed must stand.
Marcel.heys1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I nominated most of those articles for deletion and they're going to be deleted. Then you won't have an argument on which to fall back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, do you have any links to articles, scholarly reviews or books that discuss InvGate at length? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by WP:RS 1292simon (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.