Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IYOUIT

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IYOUIT

detele nn services and copyvio from [1][2] Wteeets (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — even though if there was a copyvio, it would still be deletable, notable or not. However, there is a conflict of interest with the article's author, so a copyvio is unlikely. Otherwise, notability is established through the shown published papers. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolutely no independent, third party reliable sources for this... the so-called published papers are conference inclusions no different from paid press releases in estabishing real world notability. Maybe some day it'll have independent non-trivial media mentions and can be created, but no reason to keep it (especially with copyright violation and clear promotional verbiage) until then. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep -- The subject of the article exists. The article is NPOV and utilizes the sources available to describe the subject (even though these are press releases). Press releases are evidence of the claims or the article; but the article does not come off like a commercial. If a copyvio exists, the article can be rewritten using available evidence. A good article could very well exist here in the future. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 10:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NPOV? Does not come off like a commercial? "Share personal experiences with others while on the go"; "share, life, blog and play"; "rich contextual tagging for use in everyday life"; "popular Web 2.0 services Flickr and Twitter"; "sharing can be instant"; "cutting edge"; "enhanced user experienced"(sic); "extra value". Are those phrases that you would expect to see in a neutral, non-commercial encyclopedia article? And I've only gone through about the first third of the article in picking out those phrases. I don't know whether this is notable or not, but NPOV it certainly isn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have been really, REALLY tired when I read the article. It's definitely not NPOV. I apologize. I do think the article might still be rewritten. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:19, 30 December 2008 (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.