Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike

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 Lacking multiple independent third party coverage and I think a notable award would have garnered some coverage if nothing else. Also borderline G11. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrike

Wrike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per the nom (good statement by the way). Notability guidelines are there for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The PC World coverage is decent and it won a competition, which are both non-trivial indicators of notability. There are also a bunch of posts about the subject on semi-reliable blog sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6] etc), which aren't sufficient to establish notability for the subject on their own, but the number of them plus the reliable coverage means it's probably good enough. (Oh yeah, note that I put the notability tag on the article originally. I do think it needs improvement but it isn't a lost cause.) Dreamyshade (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: The award from LeWeb3 seems to satisfy criteria 2 of WP:WEB. LeWeb3 looks to be a fairly big deal in Europe, but a lot of the google hits aren't in English. I am only hesitant because, the two other winners of the award that year [7] lack articles themselves. Burzmali (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article is nothing more than an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.31.49 (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

— 99.128.31.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per my nom. It realy is an ad.--Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (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.