Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issuu

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 keep. The article was improved during the discussion, so the earlier delete opinions were weighted accordingly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issuu

[edit]

It's a bit unusual for me to nominate an article that has 20+ sources as being non-notable, but analyzing those sources doesn't allow any other result. The majority are published by the company. The other sources are either passing mentions, or bloggish websites that I am not convinced are reliable. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it appears that image consultants are now telling clients seeking to advertise on wikipedia to just toss up a blizzard of non-RS sources (and why not, it's been working here for years) and that they'll carry the day. But if one looks at the article, as you and i have, one finds one compromised source after another. Wikipedia is not advertising. If this business becomes notable as per wikipedia's standards (reliable, multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of it) then perhaps a real article on this business will be written. In the meantime, can it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in Guardian amongst notable company "Twitter, MySpace, Issuu, Facebook". Seem notable enough to me, I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources not related to the company, only the Guardian and Wired are reliable, but in Wired it's just mentioned in an URL and in the Guardian the mention is a trivial one in passing. None of the reliable sources give independent non-trivial coverage. (It's really not 20+ references, because more than half refer to their official website. What subpage the info is on doesn't really matter when you're determining the number of sources.) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have completely reworked the sources which definitely were made incorrectly. Please have a look. I've removed references directly to the company and added more external and credible links where I could find them. I've also added a website info box to highlight that this is a commercial service. Finally, I will have to disagree with what above is referred to as "bloggish websites": Sources such as TechCrunch and CNET are among the most credible sources in the tech sector and they are used throughout Wikipedia. I have only made use of media with elaborate entries on Wikipedia, so you can judge for yourselves by following the internal links. I agree with ChildofMidnight that when a credible source such as Guardian mentions Issuu in this context: "Twitter, MySpace, Issuu, Facebook", it may be what above is referred to as "passing mention" but a pretty good one of that so I chose to keep it. The second Guardian link is to a top 100-200 list of best websites, and I think that's also fair to mention as it's an edited article by the experienced Guardian team. Morbusgravis (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As revised, clearly notable--multiple independent significant reviews in RSs. DGG (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have reliable sources. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revised article definitely shows notability. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:02, 22 April 2009 (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.