Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshworks


 * 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. Strong consensus that the company still does not meet inclusion guidelines. Given the prior history of recreation against this consensus this will be protected from recreation. If better sourcing to show notability emerges, please use the WP:AFC process or convince me or another administrator to remove this protection. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Freshworks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this, as this iteration has completely different text to the various incarnations that were deleted a couple of years ago at Articles for deletion/Freshdesk. However, I'm not convinced that this is actually a notable company in Wikipedia terms; yes, it's acquired a bunch of other companies and released a bunch of software, but none of them appear especially significant as far as I can see. There's a lot of coverage, but I'm not convinced there's much more than routine business announcements. However, this isn't my area of expertise, so I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is a notable company within its field. &#8209; Iridescent 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete yes, the warrents a new discussion.The company is not notable according to our usual standards. The references are exactly the sort of routine notices and press releases that do not show notability  at least not by our current interpretation.  Even by the possible guideline tha tall public companies are notable, it still does not qualify.  I suspect it is not really notable by frWP standards either, but it has only recently been added there, and I think they  may not yet have  noticed.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The content is translated directly from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Freshworks. This is inline with wikipedia policy on translation stated here Translation. A translation template is also indicated on the talk page of the article.

Having read the reason for the AFD nomination, I have updated the page removing "Acquisitions" section and its references which appeared to be more of PRESS RELEASES.

Having done this, I believe the page now passes WP:GNG and should be kept. All the remaining references are news-related and independent. They were not paid for.

Again, If you check "Freshworks" in googlenews, there are lots of independent news-related references found aside from the PRESS RELEASES.

Thanks all for your great contributions.Chicausnnem (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chicausnnem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, along with Freshworks Inc. and Freshworks Inc. Freshdesk was deleted a total of five times before it was finally salted at AfD.  Salting is intended to force any future recreation to go through the AFC process or otherwise to convince an administrator to remove the protection. It is not an invitation to avoid scrutiny by recreating under another name.  The speedy G4 was declined, and it is true that this is not a copy of the previous article, but the information content is pretty much the same.  As for the keep arguments above, they are all invalid.  Existence on another Wikipedia does not confer notability.  Removing iffy references does not either. It is adding references that is going to help with notability, if anything does. Note that there are stricter requirements on company articles nowadays at WP:NCORP due to GNG being constantly gamed by COI editors. SpinningSpark 16:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted above, there are now tighter guidelines for the notabilty of orgs and cos; this article does not pass them. ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the new guidelines for NCORP and Salt as being a clear target for UPE as well as the names mentioned by User:Spinningspark. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify Freshworks should be treated as a separate entity from its predecessor, Freshdesk. The current draft is poorly written and it should be draftified for someone else to have a go at creating a stable page. There are a lot of third-party unbiased references not mentioned in the current draft on which this discussion is happening.Csgir (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to share them? SpinningSpark 13:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:48, 10 November 2018 (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.