Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Deck


 * 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 no consensus. with no one arguing for delete, the keep/merge discussion can continue without a 3rd relist of this discussion. Star  Mississippi  03:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Pear Deck

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating on behalf on an IP upon request due to concerns with notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education,  and Technology. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Some of the sources cited in this article are WP:ROUTINE (and others not WP:RS) but, by my count, there are just enough references like this to get it past the notability threshold. The separate question of it potentially being promotional should be handled through a rewrite instead of deletion. Chetsford (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge. Since the company merged with GoGuardian, and GoGuardian's article is not very long, I don't see why it could not be merged and covered in a section there.  Although the article is supported by references and is factual and could be kept, its long-run encyclopedic importance is not clear;  i think it is better merged into that other.  If the name/brand "Pear Deck" will continue to be used then that should be used prominently in that article.  --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment leaning keep - Newspapers.com came up with a lot of stuff, I haven't evaluated it too closely yet, hopefully will have time to come back. Here are some clips       ...It looks likely this is WP:SIGCOV. If it's not closed too quickly, I'll have time to look at this, maybe someone else can evaluate these sources in the meantime. Jacona (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No way I'm looking at this today, so I'm striking my vote for now. Jacona (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2022 (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.