Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital

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. Davewild (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vu Digital[edit]

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

Very little independent coverage, the Vu App seems no longer to exist, and the rest is unsourced. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far, this company managed to produce one app that received mediocre reviews and was abandoned after only 2 years on the market. It is now involved in promoting an entirely different technology, but with no indication that said technology will amount to anything, and no significant coverage of said technology. Not really enough here to meet WP:ORG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not determined by importance or accomplishments, but by the depth and quality of reliable source coverage. Indeed, an app receiving "mediocre reviews" makes it notable (assuming the reviews are by reliable sources) - just the same as receiving good reviews would do. The three sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability, but additional sources such as [1][2] on recent activity add to notability, not diminish it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The company continues to get press [3],[4]. I'm not totally convinced it has a notable product, but this isn't an area I'm knowledgeable in. LaMona (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThaddeusB. Meets WP:GNG, and although I think accomplishments and importance certainly affect notability, here is an example where notability has been achieved absent those qualities. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:45, 7 May 2015 (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.