Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkLenz


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WorkLenz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested proposed deletion. Promotional orphaned stub article about non-notable software, or actually about a non-notable business travelling under an article about this software product. The supplied references are not enough to establish that this business or product is a subject for the ages: the one independent looking product review would appear to be a blog, and the other two read like press releases announcing the availability of the product and its features. This article, nominally about a product, bears a template for the business making it. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep Google news shows a stream of mentions over the past decade, including reviews in Business Week and other notable venues. I have also found news articles indicating its use by several federal agencies. It is a high-end and expensive product, so I don't see PC Week coverage coming any time soon. The article is poor, but the soruces do appear to be out there. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep per Mangoe, weak, b/c I think this article is borderline G11. It's got buzzwords up to here, and little description of what the program actually does. Ray  Talk 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Borderline, the article reads very promotional. LoudHowie (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (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.