Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamWork Online


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

TeamWork Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional piece with no in-depth coverage of the company to be found in reliable, independent sources. Fails CORP and GNG. Thought about nominating for G11, but there's a chance someone can salvage it, so let's discuss.... 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional bollocks that serves no purpose here, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(comment moved to correct location) Hi, I am the author of this article. What can be done to salvage this? I am a bit confused on how to communicate through wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8200:A100:107F:CB36:9CF6:532E (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your talk page.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising by and for the company, that would need to be wholly rewritten to become encyclopedic. No prejudice against future recreation, perhaps through Articles for Creation or Requested articles using independent sources:
 * - op-ed, not reliable for facts, see WP:NEWSORG
 * Worldbruce (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - op-ed, not reliable for facts, see WP:NEWSORG
 * Worldbruce (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2015 (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.