Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu TelePresence

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vu TelePresence

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

no indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Given references are press releases or not significant coverage. Google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the official website of Vu telepresence http://www.vutelepresence.com/ Shravanshetty502 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a website is not enough to establish notability. Neither are press releases a WP:reliable source to establish notability. noq (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 Now i have given Reference. Please check and please tell me what to do other wise i can lose my Job Shravanshetty502 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't nominate this article for deletion. Another user (User:Noq) did. However, this submission needs sources that are comprised of significant coverage about the topic from third-party reliable sources. Some of the sources currently in the article appear to be from public relations sources that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please feel free to add more reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. See also WP:N, Wikipedia's guideline page regarding topic notability for more information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article from PC World Magazine (used as a source in the article) is from a reliable source that has slightly more than passing mentions of the topic: "Enterprise Video Moving Beyond the Meeting Room." More news articles such as these, but highly preferably to be comprised of significant coverage, can help to prove the notability of the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some pruning of brochure stuff, and asked for references elsewhere. I see it as having potential but not yet being appropriate here. ~~Not offering a !vote so far.~~ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I have stated on the article's talk page, "The quality of references is seriously lacking. While I agree that the publication of a press release by some sort of periodical gives some form of verifiability I have been involved in PR and Marketing long enough to know that these stories have borderline value, if any, especially if the publishers are simply newswire aggregation services who take material uncritically. When third party references, real ones, are so scarce, using the principal's own web site is, at best, doubtful." In addition the major contributors to the article have been blocked for sock puppetry. This leads me to conclude that the article is here as a mechanism for creating its notability rather than for displaying its notability. Wikipedia may not be used to create a reputation, only to report on well verified facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked all the sources, and they're almost all either industry publications rehashing company press releases, or are published by the company itself. Not a single one of them consists of genuinely independent reliable sources offering any kind of in-depth coverage of the company or its products. The closest is probably the PC World article, but that is really just about product launches - and it's mainly about Cisco with Vu TelePresence really only getting a small mention. Essentially, all the sources really say is that the company exists and it has a product, which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. It also seems very likely this article has been written by a representative of the company as a marketing exercise. I've removed some blatant marketing-speak - "leveraging its expertise in audiovisual technology", "Vu’s business operandi lies in utilizing the power of internet and helping business afford alternative Telepresence solutions at low cost...", "to provide expertise in audiovisual technology and maintaining focus on the needs of small and midsized companies", "Vu desires to provide affordable but high value services by leveraging the power of the Internet, against existing high cost Telepresence alternatives at $89 per month", etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is stated above, references are not from true third-party independent sources. And notability is not demonstrated within the text of the article. With reference to the suggestion made above that the author may be involved with the company; as he has expressed the concern that he may lose his job if the article is removed I would submit that involvement and hence conflict of interest is admitted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I extend my sympathy to the author, and if he does have problems retaining his job he should refer his boss to this discussion to show that he was being asked to do what is not possible. (If his boss does sack him, the author should find something better where the management are really fit to manage...) Not all companies get articles, and it is not dependent on size, turnover or line of business. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In his unblock request, the author has subsequently claimed he was lying about losing his job, that he is not paid by the company, and that he and User:Cyberhawk 5 (the other contributor to the article) are just friends trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2012 (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.