Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deveo

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 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deveo[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis of adding a few other links but there's still nothing to suggest the needed substance for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still precisely zero references to establish WP:GNG compliance. Max Semenik (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure how the article sources fail to meet WP:GNG. Sources [1], [2], and [3], and to some extent [4], meet criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Full disclosure per WP:AVOIDCOI: some vested interest as a general employee of Deveo. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read the mentioned policies, haven't you? Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned a podcast and 2 blogs (that, according to our policy aren't reliable sources) as evidence of notability. Max Semenik (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the aforementioned policies many times over the last few days. Regardless of format or medium, I believe the sources to be consdered as exceptional self-published sources, as authors are established experts in relevant fields. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the self-published sources we have here don't make the grade. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you advise how the sources can be improved to "make the grade"?YetAnotherAlias (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find some sources where Deveo is the main topic in reputable publications with an editorial staff. - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "reputable publication". Also, please confirm if this is Wikipedia requirements, or your own. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:GNG, which was linked for you above: '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' - MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you questioning the editorial integrity of the sources? YetAnotherAlias (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that they appear to lack an editorial staff. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. You appear to suggest only authors whose works are subjected to the scrutiny of a paid & visible third-party editors can be considered trustworthy sources. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of Wikipedia policy in this context, that is exactly what I'm suggesting, sounds like you understand. As our resident subject matter on Deveo, do you know of any such sources we could use? - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that not undermine the editorial integrity of Wikipedia? I'll try and find some other sources. What's the issue with the Slush.fi article, [5] out of interest? YetAnotherAlias (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does not accept openly edited wikis as reliable sources. You can't cite one Wikipedia article as a source for another. Some people find this ironic, but it makes sense if you think about it. As to your question about flush.fi: One, it's a self published blog, as we've been discussing, and two, it is the promotional blog of a conference your company attended (and presumably paid some sort of fee to), so even if it were considered reliable in Wikipedia terms it would not be independent. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure I agree on that measurement of editorial integrity, but interesting nonetheless. With regard to Slush.fi, sadly, I can't say whether or not there was a fee paid to them as it was before my time. I will endeavour to unearth some more reliable sources. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi. I used Bing to look for evidences of notability for Deveo. I didn't find anything in the first five pages of the search results. The article itself doesn't provide much; at least, it does not have a source with editorial supervision. It does not seem Deveo has had any impact. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Think beyond the mere search for those multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject." YetAnotherAlias (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As soon as you provide an offline source, I'll subject it to equal treatment. But notability requires verifiable evidence and I am not seeing it so far. That Blue Arrow Award source is good, but it is one. Notability needs significant coverage. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, why isn't Slush.fi considered reliable in this case? [6]. My understanding of "significant coverage" was as a measure of how in-depth an article goes in relation to the topic, and not a measure of the number of sources overall. Apologies if I misunderstand, perhaps you could clarify. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response necessary. Question answered above. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sources, only sufficient to indicate the company exists. WP:YELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 17 July 2016 (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.