- 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jive Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article is terrible, has practically no references, and has been tagged for months without being cleaned upElimccargar (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nomination itemises reasons for improving the article, not deleting it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reliable sources are easily found, and deletion should not be used for articles simply needing cleanup. Further, this is likely a pointy deletion in response to this. I gave the nominator some advice about deletion of this article recently. tedder (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination seems pointy based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogtronix (2nd nomination)--Jac16888Talk 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of sources out there, gets covered in the regional paper The Oregonian all the time, ditto with the Portland Business Journal. Needs clean-up, not a deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has received extensive coverage in The New York Times (see: [1] [2] [3]), among other sources, and is obviously notable. Steven Walling 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but very, very weakly. This calls itself a software company in the enterprise social-networking business. It does not appear to produce well known products under its own brand, or market them to the general public. It isn't notable in the non-technical sense, and makes no claim to technical or historical importance, or any other credible claim to public note. We either need stricter standards of a sort that would exclude behind the scenes businesses like this, or else abandon any pretense to excluding spam and throw open the gates to articles written by marketing consultants. This sort of thing just does not belong. But if PC World and the New York Times have published stories about it, it probably meets the consensus for current standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think the current nomination is really WP:POINT-y either. It is, instead, a symptom of the sort of thing we're always going to face by allowing articles about businesses that are "notable" under WP:GNG but not really. "My competitor has an article; why shouldn't the business that interests me?" When you're dealing with May-fly business startups in software space, coverage in adequate sources may be a bit of a crap-shoot, or at least a function of your marketing people's connections. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It made The New York Times, as pointed out above. The. New. York. Times. Yes, that New York Times. Samboy (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (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.