Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workforce Software

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. Sourcing requirements for companies are more stringent Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce Software

[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)

The article is about a company that lacks depth of coverage and reliability of sourcing that is required to establish notability. The sources presented are either press releases or closely authored, broadly about the topic of workforce management without mentioning the company/product or just contain "workforce software" as phrase, again without being about the company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, has in-depth coverage. Gritmem (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gritmem: Sourcing is essentially a melange of press-releases or entirely unrelated sources. There is not much "out there" that I could find that would establish WP:CORPDEPTH. Of course, if there are further sources, they may be useful to be considered._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 03:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been cited in several magazines and journals such as[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and more if you search using their tools' names or website url. Gritmem (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references you've included above are either directory-like entries for the company (and relying on information provided by the company) or mentions-in-passing with the company name included as a company that provides workforce solutions. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. While some of the references appear to include "in-depth content", this content is not "independent content". The topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can you please check for its products as well? There are many links likeCrains Detroit Business where it has been reported. The books which cites this company are also independent. Gritmem (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to create an article about a product of this company (assuming there are several reviews in reliable sources) with a brief note about the company. Pavlor (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good suggestion but can we trim the content and expand with product which has adequate references? Gritmem (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any nontrivial reliable secondary independent coverage that qualifies under NCORP. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 22 April 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.