Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teamwork.com

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. NA1000 has made a strong arguments that others have agreed with and has not been rebutted. As noted, it is enough to prove the sources exist, they do not have to be used in the article (though that would be ideal). Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork.com

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

My searches have found several links throughout the years from News and browsers but still nothing to suggest the applicable notability and nothing from the current article is also better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only reliable source seems to be the Irish Independent and even that reads rather like a press release. I'd prefer to see some more sources. ww2censor (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the new sources are just links to where their software is available, such as the Apple app store, Google PLay, etc, which just means their software is available, but so are many thousands of others. Reviews provided by a company employee are no better. Most of the additions appear to be by company employees who have not edited anything else except to add link to this in related articles, so they have a clear conflict of interest. Also, mention that the company are to lease a properly does not confer notability on the company itself; many non-notable companies do that. The Irish Times citation certainly adds something new. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable company Flow234 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Looking beyond the article headline titles, notice how sources cover various aspects of the company, its history, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Irish Times
Irish Independent
Irish Examiner
Evening Echo
Irish Examiner
The Irish Times. Quote: "Datahug founder Connor Murphy has written of his admiration of the bootstrap funding model of Irish start-up Teamwork.com and worries that he is missing out on a huge opportunity in Asia. "If I was 22 and had just graduated I would be...". (subscription required)
Sunday Business Post (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Sandstein and MBisanz: Some relisting errors occurred, in which this discussion was not present in any of the AfD log pages. So, I have added this discussion to the 2016 May 29 AfD log page. As such, this discussion should be considered as having only been relisted once at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article is notable enough. See WP:ORG. ☞Henry☜ 18:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -The Keep votes comment that this is apparently notable enough but the article gives nothing else better convincing so we cannot keep this simply because it's apparently notable if there's nothing actually better to emphasize. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People !voting about topics are not required to improve articles. Check out WP:NOEFFORT and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Also see WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The articles in The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Irish Examiner, and the Evening Echo all provide significant coverage of the subject, allowing it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe at the time that this AFD started there were not sufficient sources, but by now it is clear that there is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. The company has significant impact, it's not just a flash-in-the-pan fly-by-night operation and so we have enough notability and verifiability for a stable article. --Slashme (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2016 (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.