Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrike
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about company of questionable notability. CSD declined because it was deleted once and for some reason restored back in 2007. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   09:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   09:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   09:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Besides every single reference already in the article, I can find without really looking:               And, again, that's acting like the references currently in the article don't exist. WP:GNG is clearly met here. Yes the article could use a cleanup, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup and deletion is obviously not the correct course here.   09:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – A source review indicates that the topic passes WP:GNG. NorthAmerica1000 14:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Lack of sources wasn't the primary reason for deletion, but to the extent notability is/was a factor I'd say the sources you've provided here and in the article remove any question. The issue here, however, is primarily WP:PROMO/WP:NOT. I know it's kind of a long-shot to AfD companies' promotional articles regardless of how grotesquely ad-like they may be if the subject is notable (and to be clear, I'm not saying this one is "grotesquely promotional"). It doesn't make sense to me that an article that could otherwise likely be a candidate for G11 (which is more or less blind to notability) gets a pass because of a 7-year-old DRV with no real improvements since then. That said, it may be the case that there are so many sources for this one that the only way a consensus to delete it on promotional grounds would emerge would be if it said "GET WRIKE IT RULES". That level of promotion is clearly not present. So we can consider this AfD WITHDRAWN. It's not my intention to use AfD to make a WP:POINT. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:19, 25 December 2014 (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.