Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartsheet

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. NW (Talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smartsheet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Obvious advertising for a non-notable business or website.

Obvious advertising:

It allows owners of information to comprehensively involve contributors through authenticated access, publicly-accessible published sheets, or via embeddable survey forms[2]. Functionality is focused on the ability to organize, share, and update tasks and files
Any template can be easily filled in to allow for instant business management and collaboration

The proposed deletion contester's words are also telling: Smartsheet is an excellent source for crowd sourcing. A new way to get work to people in a hurry. If you need to stay in contact with clients on a daily basis then come to Smartsheet. It will keep you abreast of your clients situations by allowing you to be able to get your work done wherever and whenever you need to have it finished.....

Note also that this is yet another page that sprung complete with software infobox, at its inception.[1] I suspect paid insertion by a publicist, of a type we ought to be aware of.

Given that this is blatant spam, notability is a side issue and should not be lawyered about. The text we have really makes no claim to minimal importance in text either. "References" given are to press releases announcing financing, dead links to stories without this business's name in the title, and petty awards from blogs you've never heard of. There are some news links discoverable; but even if this business or website is notable, this advertising text is entirely unacceptable and ought to be deleted if it remains in its current form. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definately notable 1. The article might need cleanup to remove any promotional material but that isn't a reason to delete. Personally I don't think it reads like a blatant advert. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some references and removed all the spam I discovered on the talk page.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seattle Times and USA today are sufficient sources for notability. spam can be dealt with by editing. The motive for insertion is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the Seattle Times and USA Today links plus this and this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.