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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AppViewX[edit]

AppViewX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Apparent promotional article created by SPA, with a lot of maintenance by other SPAs. PROD declined by a new SPA. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, press releases and the sort of churnalism already in the article. This doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP at all. David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The page previously had references from some PR agencies, which we acknowledge was in violation of your policies, and have since removed them.

All the information that the page contains now is genuine and have no promotional/monetary value attached to them whatsoever.

We request you to reconsider the decision, and if we're still found lacking in notability that merits the page's deletion, we request you to please let us know what we can do it avoid it.

Nishevitha (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly speaking, there is little and less a subject can do to influence whether they're notable per Wikipedia's definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we acknowledge" and "we request". Is this account shared by more than one person? Also, do you have a connection with AppViewX? --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm the sole operator of my account. And I work in AppViewX, hence the plurality.Nishevitha (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am currently of two minds on this. I made a couple of edits as I tried to figure out whether the underlying topic was or wasn't notable.

  Nominator David Gerard, did you mean to imply the article was the work of a cloud of SPAs, colluding together? That is not what I saw when I looked at the article's history? What I saw were contributors who disagreed with one another, working to correct what they saw as imperfect wroding by other contributors. So - not colluding. Were they SPAs? I didn't check.

  On the other hand, after looking at the sources, I'd say the article is currently quite inaccurate. The references I looked at said AppViewX was spun off in 2016, while our article said it was founded in 2009. That was definitely a problem, but not one for which deletion was the appropriate solution, if the underlying topic was notable.

  So, is the topic of AppViewX notable? WP:NCORP says it would have to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

  Well, in addition to those press releases, I think there has been coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. $30 million dollars of venture capital funding is not chicken feed, and that was published in independent secondary sources.

  In my opinion the biggest weakness of both the wikipedia article and much of the RS coverage is that they are really vague about the firm's actual products.

  Okay, I spent enough time to form an idea of what their product is.

  They sell software that provides developers with a visual programming interface. They claim this visual interface will enable developers who aren't professional software developers to develop visual applications of their own, without having to learn how to program.

  I was a software guy, a lifetime ago, and I have a strong prejudice against those selling software that makes this kind of undeliverable promise.

  But my strong prejudice is irrelevant, if RS talk about this topic. And, no offense, David Gerard, to whatever extent your feelings about this kind of promise, this kind of software, lay behind your nomination, it too should be irrelevant here.

  If third party venture capitalists put down $30 million bucks, and third party IT journals wrote about it, our personal prejudices should count for nothing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at the extremely skimpy sourcing - this has never been a well-sourced article - and did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing but press releases and occasional press release reprints, and that made it seem really not noteworthy. I noted the editing history as well. WP:NCORP requires more than funding rounds and churnalism - it requires actual WP:ORGIND content. Where are you seeing this significant non-press-release coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite what Geo Swan says, funding news is almost always going to be routine coverage that does little for notability at best, and an outright press release at worst, regardless of the amount of funding or the circumstances (exceptions would include if there was a suspicion the funding was tied to a financial crime somehow, e.g. money laundering). The sources on the page thus far do not show notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from the sock-puppetry and COI involved in this article, the subject simply fails WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominator, and Jéské Couriano (A little blue Bori). Subject fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. To pass GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources is required, not press releases. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devika.rajagopal. This article has COI editors right from the start. Barely edited by non COI editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:35, 13 December 2019 (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.