Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscape

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Viscape

Viscape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nom. This has already been tagged-and-deleted as spam twice, but the creator has questioned this and says they're trying to make it neutral. Given that it's IMO on the borderline, I'm bringing it over to get a broader consensus as to whether it warrants deletion.  – iridescent 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this matter. I thought with all the coverage that this site has been getting that it should be included. It has already been mentioned in many blogs and at least four Web sites for major newspapers, including USA Today and The Philadelphia Inquirer. I believe that the site is worthy of inclusion. I would be willing to rework the text if that is the problem.

Thank you again, Dcarlow (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow

I actually like this site. Been using it for a few months. could be nice to have aboard.

Devdas74 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Devdas74

• Weak delete - Other than "routine" publications which one would expect of any business of this type, the site only seems to be known in connection with upcoming United States Presidential Inauguration. Topics which are known only in connection with one event are generally not considered notable in their own right. It nominally passes Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria #1 but as I said, it's all in connection with the inauguration or is routine for a business of this type. This is more of an argument to refine Wikipedia:Notability (web) than it is to accept this article at this time. When the company clearly meets criteria #1 in a non-routine way, or clearly meets criteria 2 or 3 or any of the general notability criteria or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria then it will be time for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-on comment: Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a leading or concurrent one. It's far better for Wikipedia to be a few days or weeks "late to the party" than to have an article here before notability has been met. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Information

I really appreciate all the comments on this subject. If it is deleted, I still thank you for all the input. This will help me with any future articles that I may write.

Dcarlow (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow

• Weak Delete - I have been concerned about notability , but could be convinced to support if the longevity of the company is proven. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But as the growth of the company indicates Viscape is notable in its own right. True, it happens to be leading in an area that is just becoming. Yet, unlike other travel sites with articles in Wikipedia, Viscape is a travel marketplace as well, and also a leader in the development of web 2.0 for both real estate and destination travel. Reviewing the site shows that it contains a mix of several elements not found elsewhere: a vibrant social network, informative articles, and a market listing place. I believe Viscape will be a prevalent example of the emerging hybrid online brand.--Catracwik (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have SD tagged for the article for deletion a couple of times. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is not in the public interest to delete the Viscape article. This article is not promotional, it is informational. Other articles exist right now on Wikipedia that give information about companies. The public is not served by Wikipedia if articles are only being kept for the famous companies. Wikipedia should not only be inclusive of the elite. That's my two cents. Thanks for reading. DaniusAugustus (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read what Wikipedia is Not. In particular, it is not a compendium of all information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 11 December 2008 (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.