Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooliris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Secret account 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cooliris

Cooliris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is no indication of the importance or significance of this company. The sources cited do not, or barely meet WP:RS, and appear to be little more than mentions or fluff pieces. Consequently there appears to be no valid assertion of notability. In fact, looking at the original talk page, it appears the page was written by one of the company founders, a big no-no the last time I checked. It smacks of advertising. It may have a great product, but wikipedia is not an index of every startup company that has ever been. Eric4200 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not sure about notability, but it looks like it is leaning against notable. The article now reads as advertising and seems to assume importance without proving it.Gwynand (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As it stands there are certainly issues. However, no prohibition exist against cleaning up the article. Give it a chance, if not corrected it can be renominated. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was written by a cofounder of the company in February 2007, little to nothing has been improved on it since then. Best as I can tell from a good faith search, the company has been fairly stagnant in recent months. This article doesn't need to be cleaned up, it needs to be either excised or redone from scratch based on independent reliable sources. Eric4200 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Let's get the puff piece off Wikipedia and not leave it lying around waiting in vain for someone somewhere to set it straight. Madman (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A full signed strongly positive review in MacWeek is sufficient sourcing for notability. We dont delete for COI, just look carefully. DGG (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How exactly is a 100 word blurb on a website, mentioning a beta version for a product (from 2 years ago) sufficient sourcing for notability? And BTW, I never proposed COI as the reason fro deletion. However a self-written bio on your own company is a glaring example of COI, which is generally a big no no on wikipedia. In fact WP:COI describes COI edits as strongly discouraged, and worthy of users being banned if they are disruptive. COI articles are most definitely worthy of having a strong spotlight shined on them, and this case such an examination shows an unworthy article. Eric4200 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this company yet rises to WP:CORP. MacWeek is not sufficient sourcing for notability because they routinely profile startups they believe have promise. It's very much akin to asserting notability for a book when it's reviewed in a comprendium review listing. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though this company may produce niche products, by our notability rules they seem to have made it. If you go to the press coverage link on the company's site you'll be able to click through to the actual comments on major review sites, including Macworld. Versiontracker.com, which only reviews the Mac version, has some commentary from users (which we can't use since not reliable), and the number of downloads logged through Versiontracker isn't large. Cooliris does appear to have enough sources to deserve an article, though not all sources have yet been added. One web site pointed out that they don't yet have a business model, and all their software is free so far. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One critical problem with that argument, with the exception of an online blurb on Macworld (*barely* a reliable source), none of the other coverage meets the requirements of WP:RS.Eric4200 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So? What does my status as an editor have to do with nominating a bad article for deletion? I'm assuming that most people here think for themselves, and I would certainly hope a nominating editor's lack of editing history wouldn't prevent someone from evaluating something on it's own merits. Perhaps you're ignoring a central tenant of Wikipedia, assume good faith? Eric4200 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact your fluency in wikispeak leads me to suspect that you are a sockpuppet which makes me very suspicious of your motives. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I tried out this startup's 2 offerings last year, and they're actually not too bad, though very alpha/beta quality. If they keep at it, I could see them being notable enough for their own page in the future, but I don't seem them at that point yet. They've gotten some positive reviews, but they all appear to be short and on a few blogs and ezines. If someone can find some real press, please by all means add it. Newtman (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (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.