Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelliworks (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 of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelliworks

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelliworks, this is not a repost as the content is different. Intelliworks CRM gets about 500 Googles, of which 250 or so are unique. The article does not show evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP and is the sole contribution of Honeyuee (talk · contribs). I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. somebody created this article again because the information s/he was seeking did not exist on Wikipedia Biroy 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit (you guessed, didn't you?)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Intelliworks was profiled by The Washington Post. Full version of the article can be found here, and this is the link to The Washington Post's Archive search result.
CRM Blog profiled Intelliworks as recently as May 11.

This satisfies WP:CORP criteria no. 1. I suggest that this be marked as a stub for cleanup. Honeyuee 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the data, we now know the company has about 30 employees but plans to get up to 50 (about 1/3 of the number who work in this one office of nine or ten in the UK of my firm), and has a dozen or so customers. Confirms my view. Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Intelliworks profiled by Potomac Executive Biz. Click Here for article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.170.15 (talk • contribs) 14:19, June 20, 2006.
Delete as spam. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not a notable company. Eluchil404 02:24, 25 June 2006 (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.