Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobovivo

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 delete. W.marsh 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobovivo

Delete non-notable video download service. Corporate vanity page. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per G11, Alexa ranking of 2,520,025 [1], 240 unique Google results [2] (most of which appear to be pseudo-advertisement plugs from small websites or results from youtube or blog sites). Reads like an advert - and however dodgy Alexa ranks may be, I'm struggling to see how such a high Alexa rank indicates a notable operator in niche-market broadcasting. QuagmireDog 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Article created by User:Mobovivo on August 22, no attempt to provide citations even after a month has passed. Unleash the wikipedians of war cos [3] the War Chief says so. QuagmireDog 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh me, article fails WP:CORP, issues arising from WP:V and WP:RS also arise - apart from the once citation in the article, all other web-sites seem trivial (I'm not convinced the citation is non-trivial either, but it's a cut-above the rest). QuagmireDog 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the links that show on a google search are actually from press coverage of the company, not as suggested pseduo-advertisements. The significance of MoboVivo as a download service in Canada is that it is the first and currently only such service making a bit of historical claim - perhaps even encyclopedic - in a world of technology culture anyway. As compared to other much bigger services which have entries on Wikipedia (Apple ITunes, Google Video) this service works outside of the US and not just in one country. This in itself is noteworthy - maybe encyclopedic. This page is no more corporate vanity that those sites cited like iTunes and Google Video, I suggest that if MoboVivo could be edited to sound less like an advert and note the significant fact that US only services, however large, should be noted as such - US only and to do so one must mention those companies with broad appeal and relevance beyond the US.

• Comment Sorry, but I'm not seeing a mass of appropriate press, at least not from my own google search ^ - after the first few pages it drops away into random snatches of text from blogs. Of the sites remaining, most are psuedo-adverts - filler 'news' splashed with company quotes, what appears to be press-releases and pricing information. WP:CORP and WP:V are what I'm basing my arguments on.

There's nothing wrong in a company drumming-up some business and getting attention, but we're a tertiary source taking information from reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). The competitors mentioned stand or fall on their own merits, exclusively of the inclusion or lack of presence of competitive services. If Mobovivo is a genuinely innovative service, it will undergo critical analysis from the press, from which we make articles. Articles that read like adverts are a concern, which is why I raised it, particularly with other circumstances to take into consideration. However, articles can be cleaned-up, that in itself is neither a reason to delete the article nor something which you should spend time trying to rectify during this discussion. In retrospect, my 'speedy' suggestion was over-zealous, if nothing else Mobovivo does not resemble the kind of subject mentioned in the 'call to arms' cited, and a full discussion is deserved. QuagmireDog 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right about the press coverage -google search results in a lot of non press releases. This was not the case a few months ago - for better or worse. Going through these a bit closer and knowing the industry press outlets here are a few links that show up in a google search that show third party reviews. These are the ones that don't just re-hash a company press release.

http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=97381447-3058-4c99-99ab-459fb2e188e3 http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles07250603.asp http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=mobo040606.htm http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=53c7b897-8d33-483a-9c11-767dba2f7ce4&p=2 http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=4&article=29888 http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9396/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mobovivo_readies_tv_show_content_for_canadian_ipod_owners/ http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20060501/mobovivo.html

Although this article is clearly a work in progress (as is the company, apparently), removing it when the articles posted regarding iTunes and Google Video (among other U.S. "big media" entries) are permitted to subsist smacks of corporate favoritism and being a big bully to a small Canadian company. It looks to me like there are enough mentions in the public press (e.g. canada.com is one of Canada's biggest news sites) to provide some confirmation of the details, so I would let it be and remove it from AfD consideration.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like an advertisement. YouTube this isn't. Above press mentions are of the company talking about itself, hence still does not satisfy WP:CORP. Kavadi carrier 08:38, 4 November 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.