Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drivewyze


 * 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. A weak keep is still a keep. Tone 19:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Drivewyze

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable, and promotional. All available refs seem to be mere notices Even if there is some underlying notability, thearticle would needto be rewritten.  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   OxonAlex    - talk  07:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I did a News search which shows that Drivewyze has received sustained coverage since 2013 in multiple reliable independent sources, namely trade press for the road haulage sector. Given the nature of the product I would not expect reporting in the mainstream media, but there’s certainly enough in the specialist press to support the notability of the topic. I agree with the nominator’s view that a rewrite is probably needed, as I don’t think all of the current content is well supported, and some possibly not at all, but that’s a case for editing rather than deleting. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 07:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I found a review here and a writeup here - it seems like a legit company serving a niche market (trucking), which is now international (having recently expanded from the USA into Canada) - this may be enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT which requires "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" - Epinoia (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think Epinoia is correct. It's marginal, really marginal, but notability might just be satisfied. I was wondering about the independence of the first one, but a more in-depth read of the review actually does make it read more fairly, particularly at the end. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2019 (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.