Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skillhive


 * 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. After disregarding both the nomination and the one "keep" as making no argument, nobody disagrees with Scope creep's deletion rationale.  Sandstein  16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Skillhive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy deletion article. Light2021 (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Procedural keep. User has been told many times in the past to give reasons for deletion. "speedy deletion article" is not a guideline or policy based reason for AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reason to keep is as lame as the article itself. for your kind information, all the article I have nominated in past got deleted by people eventually. no matter how you justified these ridiculous articles by saying "Procedural Keep", does not make it reason to keep. On what ground you are saying it is worth keeping? This article is complete nonsense without having any substance. I have over 95% Success ratio of deletion ratio. Which is far more excellent in average. Light2021 (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It took me a minute to understand what you are saying but I believe you mean that this is a justified AfD because you have a high rate of successful AfD nominations? If that's the case, mine is higher I believe so does that make me right when I send something to AfD? If you'd like to make a recommendation based on policy, I would be glad to opine on the notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is "Procedural keep" on Wikipedia guidelines? Do you have anything to add why should this article be here? or its just because you do not like my AfD? Please avoid any personal opinions because you do not like me. Oh Dear! Please, We are not here on competition race who made more AfD successes. Please keep your points toward the discussion on article, my talk page is there for personal talk. I am happy to know your feedback anytime. :)) Light2021 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said I didn't like you? I don't even know you. I am commenting about your editor conduct, not you personally. However, I guess "procedural keep" can be defined as something that is "as lame as the article itself." You avoided the questions I asked though. Anyway, no need for me to discuss with you any further as its clear to me you want to bait me into a block so do as you will. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Delete I'll give the reasons. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Of the 9 references, 4 are blogs, 1 is press release, leaving 4, of which 1 is the company website, leaving 3, of which 1 is a product page, the other is a press release, and the last one is dead link. And is fairly generic software, performance management and learning optimization, skill identification. Super generic. scope_creep Talk  10:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:scope_creep. Kaszper (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2020 (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.