Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workflowy


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Workflowy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was speedied as spam and immediately recreated. Fails WP:NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it contained download links in the 'External links' section. I notice that it was recreated without those links. So what is actual basis for deletion? Knobbly (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. How is this spam? It is well referenced, and clearly demonstrates that WP:GNG is satisfied. StAnselm (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:StAnselm I will take your question as non-rhetorical. Having lots of citations does not mean "well referenced" nor does it mean "passes GNG". There are no end to low quality sites to link to.
 * It is less spammy without the links for downloading, yes. There are two very good refs (the Slate one from 2012 and the more recent one about the reboot from Geekwire. yes.
 * The rest are crappy -- here is what we have:
 * directories:
 * SPS one at that
 * directories:
 * SPS one at that
 * SPS one at that


 * mundane review or listicle
 * crappy blog
 * 2 solid refs is marginally keepable. Marginal. So worth a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No - 2 solid refs means WP:GNG is satisfied. Not worth the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * People can differ on that. I acknowledge the trend is to keep; i'll withdraw this early if that continues. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 solid refs is marginally keepable. Marginal. So worth a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No - 2 solid refs means WP:GNG is satisfied. Not worth the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * People can differ on that. I acknowledge the trend is to keep; i'll withdraw this early if that continues. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Popular website according to its Alexa rank and the article has reliable sources. Knobbly (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - well sourced with RS. Passes GNG. Of course, it could use a bit of rewording, but is that ground for deletion? L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:58, 16 June 2018 (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.