Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Help Scout (Help Desk Software)


 * 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Help Scout (Help Desk Software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of this article's 65 sources are either:

a. primary sources, b. unreliable sources, or c. trivial sources

A quick Google News search only shows things unrelated to the subject, trivial mentions, or non-trivial mentions without enough content to show notability is met. Note to creator: Creating your first article is a hard job. I can help you with it and introduce you some other aspects of Wikipedia as well. Believe me, it doesn't take a long time to be taught some of this encyclopaedia's basic policies, although it can for the minor ones. I hope this won't deteriorate your growth as a wikipedian.  J 947  03:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up J (947)! I thought I was ready for the big leagues... I'll try to find better sources to buttress this article. Is it alright if we move it back to draft in the meantime? Clarse (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the point of this nomination is that right now the subject is not notable. The suggestion of moving to draft many editors would oppose so sorry, but no.  J 947  03:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Is there anything I can do to help stay the execution? If you google "HelpScout", more articles show up. Thanks for all the guidance! Clarse (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 12 minutes between the article's creation and nominating it for deletion seems pretty harsh, especially given the incomplete/stub state of so much on here - why not give Clarse a bit of grace time to fix it, now that they are aware of the article's deficiencies?


 * As an update, I have removed all primary sources and unreliable/trivial sources. The sources that remain are from reputable websites that each have their own Wikipedia page such as G2 crowd, Product Hunt, Buffer (application), TechCrunch, Capterra, and Xconomy. I am happy to whittle down this list further, as a researcher I was honestly just worried about not having enough citations. I believe that this software also fits within the notability parameters of similar products such as LiveChat, UserVoice, and Desk.com. Clarse (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Other such software has been mentioned in the past. I do not see this as less noteworthy than that software. Therefore, I think it is sufficiently noteworthy to stay on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topgunzurhero (talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Topgunzurhero, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. What you see is exciting to others only if you provide evidence so that they see it as well. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Further update, I have added Fox News and CBS News MoneyWatch as references that directly discuss Help Scout. Clarse (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither of those articles directly discuss Help Scout. The reporter asks the Help Scout CEO for an opinion about something else (and introduces him by his job title for context). I suppose one could cite them as reliable sources for the name of the CEO, but these aren't the sort of thing that speak to Help Scout's notability. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a promotional, ref-bombed article. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Further update: I have removed all references that are not noteworthy. All of the remaining citations are from sources that each have their own Wikipedia page. While I might be mistaken, I do think that this is an argument for notability since this software is written about by reliable sources that are notable enough to pass Wikipedia's standards. Clarse (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there are numerically many sources, they seem to be mentions in passing, of dubious independence (catalogs of software with functionality described presumably with language from the software vendor), plus social media individual reviews. Little evidence of notability. There just aren't enough independent 3rd party sources that would cover in sufficient detail to be able to have an article. Also per K.e.coffman. Finally, not sure why we need both this article and Help Scout about the company that makes it. Martinp (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2017 (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.