Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike (3rd 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 keep. There is a clear consensus after extended discussion, which has seen no additional impetus towards deletion since relisting last month. I also note the uncontroversial existence of a more thoroughly sourced article on the software produced by the article subject. Since both articles are fairly short, and it is unlikely that the product (a subtopic) is more notable than its producer, I am WP:BOLDly merging and redirecting the subtopic into its supertopic. bd2412 T 03:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. Press coverage and non-notable media/ online blogs covered as references. Spam Award is found: Red Herring'. Definitely paid or PR driven. Sources are not in-depth. Previously Deleted as well. Light2021 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The market of over 150 project planning programs out there is rapidly collapsing into just a small handful of players, Wrike being one of the dominant ones. They are well capitalized (Bain VC), grown to over 500 employees and recently moved their headquarters to downtown San Jose. Their development team in St Petersburg, Russia and opening of a large Dublin, Ireland office and data center are hallmarks of a Silicon Valley success story with global presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptide360 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Wrike participants:, , , and . Pinging Articles for deletion/Wrike (2nd nomination) participants: , , and . Cunard (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The available press coverage is sufficient for notability. The article used to be much longer with many more references - see 10 May 2017. The article would benefit from critical perspectives instead of just including positive information about the company, but as WP:ATD says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Why does the nomination disregard the 2nd nomination, which was unanimous to keep?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by at Articles for deletion/Wrike (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as supported by WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Promotion and WP:Not webhost since both information and sources are promotional, see: 1-9, 11-15, 17-18 are all republished company-label announcements, 10 and 16 is an company-published overview, and the offered "article used to be bigger" is not a policy-supported factor since, not only were these promotional sources existing then, but it was worse, showing attempts to remove advertising here were unsuccessful; in the former article, 34 was a total sources number and 18-34 were all clear company-label announcements again. Suggesting that we simply replace promotionalism with either different coated or reworded is not how encyclopedia articles work, and it wouldn't maintain our integrity here. From WP:What Wikipedia is not: Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions, and that's exactly what's offered as information and sources, and the quoted policy supersedes GNG every and any time. In fact, the history shows accounts such as potential COI this, this, this, this, this, etc. To quote the cited GNG, it actually says: therefore republished publicity is not a factor at all, and this therefore emphasizes the need of independent non-PR coverage, not simply any bare coverage. A comment above says the coverage is "sufficient, reliable independent" yet clear analysis here shows it's quite contrary. Our standards have dramatically changed since 2014 especially when the current paid campaigns are occurring so we have the critical choice of examining articles differently now. If we were suggested to take good-faith on unquestionably clear promotionalism by promotional users, that would stepping back on our own fundamental policies stating: Wikipedia is not for promotion. In fact, if we take into consideration the clear possibility the named accounts were elusive employees, that would violate our Terms of Use against paid contributing, a non-negotiable policy.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Company and software have extensive coverage. This one is from a Forbes staff writer and this one is from the news editor at PC World. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. While nominator is correct it was deleted in the past, the most recent nomination shows withdrawn after 2 keep !votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2017 (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.