Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivisimo

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivisimo

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

This article cites zero mainstream sources — only trade publications. But WP:CORPDEPTH says that "media of limited interest and circulation" aren't sufficient to prove notability. See also WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough.

Worse yet, this one-sided article reads like a press release. (That's why, for example, it's not completely clear exactly what Vivismo Velocity Search Platform actually does.)

Please delete ~~per WP:CORPDEPTH and/or~~ per CSD G11.

~~Dear all: Please read WP:42 before you vote.~~

Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Vivisimo is a keystone of the history of alternative search engines and services in the U.S. Deleting this page would be a great disservice to those that use Wikipedia. Unforgettableid could probably help out a lot more by focussing on a field where his/her expertise could really shine through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Vivisimo was an important company in the enterprise search space.
- The page WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough is not Wikipedia policy--it is just an essay by a Wikipedian. In many domains, a combination of the trade press and a company's own publications is probably the most reliable source for a topic. Consider, for example, non-stick coatings for frying pans. There is certainly academic research on the compounds used, but I doubt there is any on the way they are applied to frying pans, the way they are marketed, etc.
- The fact that the current state of an article is not very good (or that editors with a COI have contributed to it) is not a reason to delete it.
- It doesn't take much effort to find articles about Vivisimo in the mainstream press. The Google search [site:nytimes.com vivisimo ] finds dozens of articles mentioning it, many focusing specifically on it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Vivisimo was a massive company and a vital part of the industry and there are hundreds and hundreds of articles online mentioning the company. As pointed out, sites like the NY Times feature Vivisimo frequently - which I wouldn't describe as "limited circulation"... Adrianw9 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a lot of coverage of the takeover in business and tech press and other media, from Wall Street Journal[1], TechCrunch (owned by AOL)[2], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[3], Forbes[4], plus[5][6][7]. But there's also other coverage of Vivismo - mainly in InfoWorld, but also elsewhere[8][9][10]. This is the sort of company that gets a lot of press. Notability standards for businesses are quite weak and clearly met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article fails CSD G11, then it doesn't matter whether Vivisimo meets WP:CORP or not: Wikipedia tradition is that articles correctly nominated as "G11" are deleted. But I still am not convinced that Vivisimo meets WP:CORP. I haven't yet seen a New York Times article about Vivisimo which includes significant coverage: if you find one, please show us. I haven't yet looked into whether my local library offers me WSJ access through its EZProxy at-home-access service. I don't see why TechCrunch would be "mainstream coverage". Read the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article: you'll see it's nothing but local coverage. Read the short Forbes article: much of it seems to be quoting from a press release. Of the three Google Books links provided, one links to InfoWorld, a trade publication; the second looks like an undergraduate textbook; and the third looks like an academic work. So it seems to me that none of the three Google Books links point to mainstream sources. Dear all: Please reread and review WP:42, and memorize it well. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for CSD G11 is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." This page is not exclusively promotional, though I agree that there was some puffery. I have edited the article to reduce that. As for NYT articles, the Google search above lists many NYT articles mentioning Vivisimo. The first one, "New Company Starts Up a Challenge to Google" is an article by John Markoff, a respected technology journalist, primarily about Vivisimo. I am confused by your evaluation of sources; in what way is an "academic work" a problematic source? --Macrakis (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; the article by Mr. Markoff indeed includes significant coverage and is indeed an acceptable source. Also, I looked more carefully at the relevant policy pages today; I now see that academic works are often excellent sources. OK; so Vivisimo probably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I have struck out the relevant part of my nomination. Also, thank you very much for your recent edit; it removes much PR-agency cruft from the article. But the article started out so atrocious that I suspect it still deserves deletion (per G11) despite the significant improvements you've made. If you're still interested in rescuing the article, then more public-relations content removal is probably necessary. You may also want to explain what Vivisimo's product actually does; you can adapt content from the first paragraph of Garrepi's revision if you like. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2013 (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.