Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workato (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 was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workato

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A previous instance was deleted in November 2018; the present article was drafted by a declared connected contributor and moved into mainspace on their 11th edit. I can't compare the previous article instance but the previous AfD discussion also noted funding text references, which are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from the funding coverage, the article lists industry awards and inclusion in analyst vendor reports. These last may be a closer call in terms of WP:NCORP, though a reporting analyst would be expected to cover the vendors in the particular area and I don't think inclusion automatically implies notability here. Searches also find a book paragraph about the tool. Overall, this is clearly a company going about its business. I'm bringing it to AfD to see whether the November 2018 AfD decision should be overturned; my own view is that there is not enough to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2018-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2018-11 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although most of the sources used in the article are just fundraising news, there are some other independent coverage available online such as TechCrunch, Clickz, People and Computers, Diginomica. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Editor above points to three references in particular but they also fail. This TechCrunch reference is based on company PR such as this blog post and this company announcement dated the same day, fails WP:ORGIND. Clickz, This from ClickZ is based on a company announcement and even says it in the second sentence, also fails ORGIND. This from People and Computers is based on a company announcement from one of their partners and says so in the first sentence, fails ORGIND. Finally, this from Diginomica is a writeup of the latest platform update but all of the information is provided by the company and peppered with quotations from an executive, also fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The only "Independent Content" is the "My take" section is 4 sentences and says nothing about the company. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 27 May 2020 (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.