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. v/r - TP 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boliven[edit]

Boliven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No independent sources. No indication or sign of notability. Speedy deleted on two previous occasions. Third speedy contested so afd-ing. Also, while not a reason to delete, all significant contributors appear to be SPAs promoting Boliven and its parent company, Cambridge IP. GDallimore (Talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure vanispamcruftisement with nothing but self-published sources (mostly the subject's own website) for "references" … lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:WEB or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
• delete — may i propose that if articles on search engines are to be kept, they should at a minimum give some results on themselves? if you can't do SEO when you own your own SE, why even bother? there's nothing on real search engines either, except articles in german on bolivia written by people who can't spell bolivien, so fails all possible notability guidelines. it's cute how they explain what their "advanced search" function does, though. it allows "fuzzy"! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have just added two independent sources, but I could not find anything providing a significant coverage, i.e. providing "more than a trivial mention" (Wikipedia:Notability, General notability guideline). I would have expected more occurrences if the database or the service was notable. There is also a recent IEEE paper mentioning Boliven, see [1] and [2] (Sheikh, Nasir et al, "Forecasting of advanced electronic packaging technologies using bibliometric analysis and Fisher-Pry diffusion model", Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11, July-Aug. 2011). I couldn't fully read it, but I suspect it includes only a trivial mention as well. --Edcolins (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Hello, thank you for your contributions and comments. We have added some additional independent sources. Could you let me know if we should make 'notability' explicit in the article (it may sound like advertising if we state facts in support of 'notability' - e.g. Boliven is one of the largest collections of science literature online, has more than 30,000 users, rapidly growing user base, etc, I'm trying to avoid making this type of statement?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariana Hudecova (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might need to read this policy and the associated explanations of what "reliable" and "independent" mean. GDallimore (Talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mariana Hudecova, please could you also take a moment to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as I mentioned on your talk page and here. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI'd like to add some support for this page. I believe it will add signficantly to the "sum of human knowledge" by providing a review of one of many business intelligence search tools that can be readily accessed by the public. Innography already have a wiki page and I am sure more will follow. The Intellectual Property community do have access to a private wiki (see http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/Main_Page) but I would prefer to see one develop as part of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community will by its nature ensure that content is unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ip phil (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've gone through innography and removed the obviously unreliable sources and self-promotion based on press releases, but think it just about complies with the notability guidelines. Perhaps someone else would care to take a second look. GDallimore (Talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for this - I agree. I would like to see all the articles associated with 'Patent search services' or 'Business intelligence companies' being of a common standard so that the public are well informed of these valuable services. Boliven seems to me to have some good search and display methods not found on the more popular Espacenet service.Ip phil (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I am usually an advocate for inclusion. I conducted searches of the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Business Journal (there is an office in Boston), the Cambridge University Reporter, Cambridge News, The Spectator, Financial Times, The Times and The Guardian. The only results were against "cambridgeip" in the Business Section of Cambridge News. There is the potential for an article about CambridgeIP with a section devoted to Boliven, but I do not think that a stand alone article on Boliven is warranted at this time. The citations provided support verifiability, but not notability. For instance, the BusinessWeek citation supports notability of the CEO, but verifiability of the company. It would be very useful to understand the nature of the French language citation, whether it supports notability or only verifiability. Thanks if someone can ascertain that. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (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.