Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kontinuum

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kontinuum

Seems not to be notable according to WP:SOFTWARE. Alexa ranking of the company is 883,966; a Google search for "Kontinuum" and "Web and Flo" returns 179 hits. The talk page contains some claims to the contrary and a {{prod}} by user:Weregerbil was removed by user:The13thMan. S.K. 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that is Odd. I dont get the same google hits as you do. If I type in Kontinuum Workflow I get 9000 hits. Google or Alexa is a bit hard to measure a size of a company's breadth or significance. Probably a better measure is to see what kinds of site are talking about the subject and if those sites are important or just link farms. I would probably vote to keep it but maybe remove the external links as these can be abused. The neural workflow aspect I am pretty sure is unique but I am not sure that directly implies noteworthy. Happyfish 12:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. By contrast, Googling "Kontinuum Workflow Software Suite" gets exactly two hits; their website and this article. Googling "Kontinuum Workflow" (with Advanced Search/Phrase, not as two separate words) gets six unique hits. RGTraynor 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Notability implied in article but not referenced, stated in talk page but not referenced. I currently have other things to do than this research, but if I was an editor who wanted to retain the article, verifying notability in the article is where I'd start, methinks. Colonel Tom 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nothing more than a spamvertisement for a non-notable piece of software. --Hetar 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup: In Australia it seems to be relevant. There are 3 major search engine sites google.com.au, ninemsn.com.au and yahoo7.com.au which are driven by the google, MSN, and Yahoo search engines. If I type in "Workflow Software" into each of them searching for australian sites then there are the following natural listing results:

Google (Position 4: Site about Web and Flo, Position 7: webandflo.com) MSN (Position 4, 9 & 10: Sites about Web and Flo, Position 7: webandflo.com) Yahoo (Position 1: webandflo.com). I do not think the number of sites is as good an indicator of relevancy as opposed to site ranking. Since the engines are much better at detecting over-zealous SEO and they do blacklist sites. (note I personally have contributed to this page so you may feel my vote is biased.) PsychoSafari 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I get the same 29 ghits with both google.com[1] and google.com.au [2], for a computer product that's just plain awful. --Eivind^t@c 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

google: [3]yahoo: [4]ninemsn: [5] Whether or not someone thinks the great or horrible does not make it any less notable. PsychoSafari 01:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• NeutralHi I actually work for web and flo so you make take everything I have to say as fully biased. I personally think it is relavant athought I think my opinion should not carry any weight. However one thing I would like to point out is that Kontinuum Workflow Software Suite as a name is only one month old. Before that it was just called Kontinuum (for about 6 months I think) and before that it was called "Web and Flo". That is why there are so few hits for Kontinuum as a name. I dont really mind if this gets deleted as we have no control over it and it can be used to say very negative things about the product by competitors.

• Clean Up' 218.214.40.51 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Importance not established. Runcorn 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, quite clearly an ad. Try searching on Google Groups, somebody would be talking about it if it were software that people actually buy and use... LjL 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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.