Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26

26 September 2017

italki

italki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am new to the process of Wikipedia editing and deletion reviews. I'll do my best to make the case correctly.

Recommending the reinclusion of italki (the language education service) from deletion, using this page as content User:Kshanghai/Italki.

Previous versions of the page were not well referenced WP:RS, and did not meet the standards for objectivity WP:NPOV, notability WP:GNG, and for being too close to corporate promotion WP:CORPSPAM.

New page content tries to address this by: 1. Rewriting the previous text to be simpler, and more neutral. 2. Adding references for sources that are reputable, including major news organizations and industry blogs that cover technology or language education WP:RS. 3. Removed text that could be viewed as promotional.

Using criteria of neutrality and notability, removing italki from Wikipedia seems inconsistent. It is arguably the largest company in this segment, and significantly smaller companies are included in Wikipedia. For disclosure of conflicts of interest, I am employed by the company. WP:AVOIDCOI

Reference to the previous deletion discussion:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Italki

Kshanghai (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've fixed up the header to include this as the XfD link -- RoySmith (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. Thank you for writing the draft; having a concrete draft to look at makes these discussions simpler. However, I'm afraid I don't think the sources meet our requirements. I scanned the list of references. Many of these appear to be routine announcements of funding events. I found three titles that looked promising and read them in more detail. Online alternatives to language classrooms open up to students (The Guardian) and Secrets of Leaning a Language - Quickly (BBC) are both articles about the general topic of learning languages, and mention Italki only in passing. The 10 best language products (Independent) is a directory-style listing. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH; none of these meet the requirements set out there. It would be useful if you could list here the two or three and no more sources which you believe best meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• By endorsing the AfD, which was not being contended, your !vote has opened up the whole can of worms that was the AfD, yet you've not contacted the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• No worries, I′m keeping an eye on this. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of the comments. @RoySmith: I've been trying to find the best articles that would fit the criteria. In other Wikipedia articles, I've found that editors seem to focus on the mainstream publications. My sense of the most important articles, and this is just an opinion.
• Tech News: It is funding news, but it has more information “Shanghai-based startup italki raises US$3M to help Chinese students find language tutors,”.
• Mainstream News: Guardian article on general language learning - "Can I learn a language..." and Guardian article on the teaching side - "Online English Language Learning..."
• Google Book search for italki has 2000+ references. They mention italki in its role for providing human teachers for language learning.
• @Unscintillating: I communicated with filelakeshoe briefly before resubmitting here. Sorry, I should have noted that earlier. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The e27 piece (the one you call Tech News) is a recycled press release. It shows up on Deal Street Asia a day earlier. Articles based on press releases don't count for anything. The two Guardian pieces are both articles about learning languages in general and only mention italki in passing. One of those, in fact, is exactly the source I already commented on above, as being unusable. -- RoySmith (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse new article, overturn AFD to noquorum softdelete, trout User:CAPTAIN_RAJU for relist #3, and trout User:TheSandDoctor for relist #4.  Note that CORPSPAM is an op-ed, i.e., a blog by a Wikipedia editor.  None of the participants has shown results from WP:BEFORE.  Without even talking about Google web, Google news, and Google books; a look at the first page of Google scholar shows a persistent long-running interest by the world of academia.  For example, the first link from 2010 states, "...[the] five most popular language learning social networks, Livemocha, italki, ChinesePod, MayHappyPlanet, and xLingo."  The next four links feature "italki" in the title of the source.  As a multi-language topic, sources from around the world include languages that don't use the Roman alphabet, which was not even mentioned in the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is an article from El Pais in Spanish Redes sociales para aprender idiomas. There are numerous news articles for italki, switching to other languages in the search filter. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse agreed that the relisting was pointless, and it should have been soft deleted much earlier, but it did have a full quorum (which these days we count as two !votes). I don't see a reason to overturn to soft delete since three editors endorsed deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As a note, the sources provided by Cunard below do not change my opinion. I wouldn't oppose a relist, but I do oppose DRV being turned into AfD 2.0. The deletion was good on its merits, and the sourcing provided is not enough information to lead us to believe that it clearly would have survived AfD. If people think that the sourcing below is enough to support an article, a relist is better. DRV's job is to evaluate process, while AfDs job is to evaluate sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 is for "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"  Are you requiring OPs to submit petitions here under WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • No, but I also believe that when three AfD regulars agree to delete an article for reasons other than notability they also likely did a WP:BEFORE search. To turn DRV into an assessment of sourcing that they likely already reviewed is not part of the purpose of DRV, and AfD does it better than we do here. DRVPURPOSE3 involves things like new information coming to light that a subject actually met an SNG criteria, or it was deleted on grounds that non-English sourcing was unlikely, and someone then finds sourcing. There is nothing new here that if presented would have been likely to change the AfD outcome to the point where overturning is justified. I wouldn't be opposed to restoration and then immediately relisting at AfD by the closing admin here, however, but it is not my first choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't believe for a second that any of those three editors checked Google Scholar.  Only the first editor reports looking for sources.  I think an experienced editor doing a WP:BEFORE D1 with this topic might have skipped Google scholar.  The second reported the irregular CORPSPAM, which fits in with WP:IAR based on article content, and does not report any source search or notability concerns, so might not have felt a need to make a source search.  For the third editor, I checked their last 21 AfDs, and they never report that they have found a source.  That leads to the deduction that they don't say that they've looked for sources because they aren't looking for sources, at least enough to have added a source to the AfD.  In summary, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is not based on vote counting.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Here is what WP:BEFORE D1 says, as of in permlink [1]

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.

The point is to show that Google Scholar is not part of the basic WP:BEFORE D1 search for a non-academic subject.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And is there evidence that any of the participants considered and rejected sources that are presumably available in Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Swahili, Thai, and Vietnamese?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Allow mainspacing the draft, and let anyone who disagrees with the new article take it to AfD again. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Relist I don't think the draft would survive another AfD, the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements. However it is a lot better than the AfDed version and I don't see any harm in giving it another chance. I don't have a problem with the close of the first AfD, while it shouldn't have been relisted so many times it was proper to close as delete rather than soft delete with the participation it (eventually) got. Hut 8.5 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

As detailed above, I don't think the new sources are useful. On the other hand, AfD is a better place to evaluate sources than DRV, so I wouldn't be opposed to restoring this and immediately listing it at AfD to get the new sources evaluated. @Kshanghai: really should respond to my request call out the best sources for evaluation; we're being asked to do work to evaluate this; the nominator should at least meet us half-way by doing a little work to make our jobs easier. I agree that four relists was pointless. I'm happy to hand out a couple of micro-minnows for the relists, but trying to rewind history and say, what would we have done if the relists never happened is equally silly. We're here, and we should evaluate the article we've got now. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: I apologize to all the editors about my slow response. I have been traveling and in the Asia timezone. I've tried to respond to all of the comments above, and I agree that the original poster should do more of the work. I've tried to put the best sources above. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Cunard's sources below are much better than what was in the draft, and are IMO easily enough to justify restoring the article or reconsidering it at AfD. Hut 8.5 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've got to agree with Roy that this doesn't pass WP:N. The sources are startup stuff, press releases, and passing mentions. That said, this is a well written article (verging on a stub) that has encyclopedic value. I'd personally prefer we keep things like this around. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Hobit: I hope that the article can be kept. My sense is there is not a perfect set of 2-3 articles that would prove the notability (WP:N) of the service. There are many, many mentions. If this article is removed on WP:N, there are other companies similar to italki that are smaller and arguably less noteworthy. I know that's not an argument in itself, but it's worrying from the perspective of impartiality (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL)Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've moved Kshanghai's reply to Hobit to be right below Hobit's post (instead of below my post). Kshanghai, please move it back if that's not your intention. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Following up to my own comment (which lacks a bold !vote), I'm now at endorse but restore deletion was reasonable at the time, but while none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth, they are, together, enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And following up my follow up per Cunard's request. Source 1 is quite in-depth. Source 6 is fairly in-depth. The others are not so impressive. But for our purposes, the answer is that there is enough sourcing to restore and let someone list if they want. The original close was correct IMO given the sources known and that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Restore per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  
  AfD close
  
  Three editors supported deletion. No editors supported retention. A "delete" close is reasonable.
  
  filelakeshoe's interaction with Kshanghai
  
  Thank you, filelakeshoe (talk · contribs) for your advice and guidance to inexperienced editor, Kshanghai (talk · contribs). While reviewing AfDs at DRV, I have seldom seen closing admins provide such caring and empathetic help to new users who ask why their article has been deleted. You explained why the article had been deleted and what needed to be done to overcome deletion. You userfied the article, provided feedback about the rewritten draft, and copyedited it to make it more neutral. This is admirable behavior. I hope you continue doing this. It improves the encyclopedia and makes new users (and experienced editors) feel more welcome and motivated to contribute content.
  
  Analysis of sources
  
  italki was studied and written about extensively in the peer-reviewed journal Teaching English with Technology, which is published by International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Poland. italki received a substantial profile in a Sina Corp article written in Chinese. It received significant coverage in the Harmony Books–published book Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It and the John Wiley & Sons–published book Social Networking for the Older and Wiser: Connect with Family and Friends, Old and New. GeekDad's Luke Nailer reviewed italki.
  
  Sources
  
  
  1. Turula, Anna (2017). "Learner Autonomy as a Social Construct in the Context of "Italki"". Teaching English with Technology. 17 (2). International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Poland: 3–28. ISSN 1642-1027. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28 – via Education Resources Information Center.

     From the abstract:

     The article looks at language learner autonomy as a social construct in relation to the context and its user based on the example of "Italki", a social networking site for tandem language learning. Considering the two foci--the context and the learner--the study is divided into two parts, both carried out from the perspective of online ethnography, each utilising different techniques and tools. Part 1, based on participatory observation and user experience of the author, was aimed at investigating the context of "Italki" as a language learning environment. Its affordances, noted in the course of the study, are analysed against the three aspects of social learner autonomy (Murray 2014): emotional, political, and spatial, in order to investigate the potential of Italki for interdependent learning. In Part 2 of the study, with its focus on the learner, the data were gathered by means of semi-structured open-ended interviews with "Italki" users (N = 10).

     The article notes:

     Italki – along with lang8, Buusu, MyLanguageExchange, eToM (electronic Tandem on Moodle), Speaky and many others – is a social networking site designed for tandem language learning. Such learning is based on one-to-one exchanges between speakers of different languages, who partner up to teach each other their mother tongue (or a language in which they are proficient) and to learn the target language from one another (Cziko, 2004). Apart from such language-for-language barter exchanges, portals like Italki offer their users an opportunity to learn with professional teachers for a tuition fee.

     ...

     Italki is an informal service in the sense that it is not part of any institutionalized schooling system. Enrolment and participation are a matter of choice for any user and so is the agenda, which may range from mere exploration through socializing in a foreign language to informal (peer-to-peer) or formal (tutored) language education.

  2. 刘琳 (2017-07-13). "italki Kevin Chen：做语言学习的"淘宝"" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Retrieved 2017-09-28. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

     The article notes:

     住在伊利诺伊州附近的小城埃尔金(Elgin)的芭芭拉·莱内(Barbara Laane) 的丈夫是德国人，她想学习德语；而德语是出了名的难，如果没有老师指导学习难度更甚。一个偶然的机会，她知道了一个叫italki的网站，在众多母语教师中选择了一位，预约了线上一对一付费课程，然后就此爱上了这样的线上学习方式。

     目前在italki上像芭芭拉这样的注册用户在全球范围内超过400万，在线母语教师则有5000多名，可以选择的语种多达75种，除了大语种外，还有一些十分稀少的小语种。除了付费线上一对一课程，在italki学生还可以获得免费的写作修改、语言知识问答服务，同时，用户也可以在italki寻找世界各地的母语语伴，进行语言交换。

     这家起步于2006年底的公司如今已经成长为行业佼佼者，通过Skype在线链接全球的母语教师，为全世界的语言学习者提供一对一课程。

     From Google Translate:

     The husband of Barbara Laane, a small town near Elgin in Elgin, is a German, and she wants to learn German; and German is notoriously difficult, if there is no teacher to guide the difficulty of learning Even more By chance, she knew a website called italki, chose one of the many mother tongue teachers, made an online one-on-one paid course, and then fell in love with such online learning.

     At present, there are more than 4 million registered users in the world, such as Barbara, there are more than 5,000 native language teachers, and up to 75 languages ​​can be selected. In addition to the big language, there are some very rare Language. In addition to paying online one-on-one courses, italki students can also get free writing changes, language knowledge quiz, while users can also find their language counterparts around the world in italki for language exchange.

     The company, which started at the end of 2006, has now grown to be a leader in the industry, providing a one-to-one course for language learners around the world through Skype's global language teacher.

     This article is an extensive profile of italki.
  3. Wyner, Gabriel (2014). Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It. New York: Harmony Books. ISBN 038534810X. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The book notes:

     Italki

     A language exchange community with a well-thought-out payment system. You can use italki to find a professional teacher or untrained tutor in your target language and work with him through email or video chat for extremely low prices. There are free options on the site, which can help you find language exchange partners, but I mostly recommend italki for its paid services.

     The book also notes:

     italki.com can get you in touch with native speakers, who will talk with you or train you for very small amounts of money or in exchange for an equal amount of time speaking in English. You can spend an hour going through words with them and asking them to correct your pronunciation, which can help immensely.

     The book notes:

     italki.com brings money to the table, which changes the game dramatically. It can connect you with native speakers and professional teachers, who are willing to chat with you exclusively in your target language. This cuts the English out of your practice sessions and makes them much more efficient. Since these teachers get to work in the comfort of their own homes, they usually charge very little.

  4. McManus, Sean (2010). Social Networking for the Older and Wiser: Connect with Family and Friends, Old and New. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. p. 236. ISBN 0470970685. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The book notes:

     Italki.com

     Practising with a native speaker is the best way to keep your fluency up in a foreign language, and can also be a friendly way to improve your language skills if you're not yet fluent. Italki makes it easy for you to find study partners who are native speakers of the language you're learning, and who would benefit from your native language (probably English, if you're reading this).

     Whatever you want to learn, you're bound to find a partner here: The site has over 450,000 members from 212 countries, who speak over 100 languages.

     As well as finding language partners, you can join or start discussion forums (in English, or a foreign language) and can pose or answer questions about language study. There's a wiki for learning languages too, which is an encyclopaedia that anybody (including you) can edit. The ratings will help you to find the well researched and accurate entries. Don't forget the contributions mostly come from other students and might occasionally include errors – don't let their mistakes rub off on you!

  5. Riley, Jeffery A. (2011). 2011 Social Media Directory: The Ultimate Guide to Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana: Pearson Education. ISBN 0132601117. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The book notes:

     italki.com

     The goal of this social network is to create a community where people can learn languages by finding language partners and language resources and develop their language skills by participating in chats, groups, and forums. Dozens of languages are represented on this lively site.

  6. Nailer, Luke (2015-05-16). "How Italki Got Me Speaking Mandarin". GeekDad. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The article notes:

     Visiting the italki website and looking through the teachers seems a bit like looking at a Craigslist of language learning. There is a section for language exchange partners that don’t charge anything, but this is something that I am yet to explore. Teachers set their own rates. Depending on the language and where your instructor lives the price could

     ...

     It is possible to go through other channels to find a Skype-based language teacher, but italki does a good job of having many in one place. I also feel like there is a degree of vetting and auditing going on, so I’m confident my teacher is who they say they are. In a few years time I might use italki to find a language tutor for my daughter if she’s enthusiastic about her language class at school.

     One thing I found challenging with italki was that, after buying a batch of lessons, when I wanted to book a new lesson I kept getting redirected to buy new batches. This was annoying; I just wanted to book times for the lessons I’d already paid for. Ultimately I was able to navigate my way around this, but I have found the UI for the booking system to be not very intuitive.

     Here is GeekDad's masthead:

     Owner/Publisher, Editor-at-Large

     Ken Denmead
     
     Editor-in-Chief

     Matt Blum
     
     Managing Editor

     Z
     
     Senior Editors

     Jonathan H. Liu, Jenny Bristol, Corrina Lawson, Patricia Vollmer
     
     Gaming Editor

     Dave Banks

     The editorial oversight establishes that GeekDad passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
  7. Aune, Sean P. (2008-05-05). "Italki Launches Socially Built Language Textbooks". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The article notes:

     The site [Italki] launched in December 2006 with the goal of bringing free language learning to every part of the world, and thus far the site has been translated into 14 languages with more to come. Taking a look at the portions of the the Knowledge system they provided us with, it looks good, and seems it will teach words with easy visual recognition. The only thing that worries me, as with any wiki based system is the accuracy. For all you know, you could think you were learning "Where is the closest ATM?" in Japanese, and actually be saying, "Were is a good place to get mugged?"

  8. So, Sherman (2008-08-08). "Social networking sites take language learning out of classroom". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2017-09-28.

     The article notes:

     That is the idea behind Shanghai-based italki.com, a free social networking website focused on language learning, and Beijing-headquartered Idapted.com, which supports professional language training.

     ...

     Launched last December after receiving its first round of funding in July, italki has joined a nascent group of social networking sites integrated with language-learning services.

     Competitors include United States-based Livemocha.com, established in September, and VoxSwap.com, set up in Britain in January.

     ...

     So far, italki has attracted 250,000 registered users. In April alone, the site attracted 45,000 new users. About 20 per cent of its users are from the mainland and the rest spread across the globe, including 7 per cent from the United States, 4 per cent in India and 2 per cent in France.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow italki to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Cunard: Thanks very much for showing a new editor what a good case for notability looks like. It's very appreciated. I hope to use that as a reference going forward. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome, Kshanghai (talk · contribs). Thank you for your kind words. Feel free to reach out to me in the future if you would like someone to help review an article or look for sources on a topic. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse as what takes precedence here is absolutely our policy and that's WP:Not promotion, and it wouldn't matter that an article satisfies a general notability which only suggests the possibilities of an article, not a guarantee, and this itself is in its relevant lead. It certainly cannot be suggested that a consensus was not clear from 2 votes that clearly read the article and noted necessary concerns; that is what we consider sufficient. An example is how the sources above are of the same press releases-nature as the sources before the article was deleted; nothing changed. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Here are two strong sources:
  1. The Teaching English with Technology journal article at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140656.pdf mentions italki 109 times.
  2. This Chinese article from Sina Corp extensively profiles italki.
  These sources are sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, which says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"

  {{db-repost}} clearly is inapplicable after Kshanghai's rewrite. DRV should not deny recreation of an article that has been rewritten and where substantial sources not discussed at the AfD have been presented. If editors disagree that these sources are sufficient to establish notability, then a new AfD should be created.

  Editors at AfD specifically said that the article was "poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM" and "corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance". The rewritten article addresses the promotional concerns. The two sources I provided above address the notability concerns.

  Hobit (talk · contribs) and Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), you wrote "none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth" and "the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements", respectively. Would you review the sources I've provided? When deciding whether to restore/relist or not, the DRV closer likely will put significant weight on your views about the sources. Thank you.

  Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've added an additional comment above. Hut 8.5 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

CRMNEXT

CRMNEXT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that I present significant new information since the article was deleted

To establish notability of CRMNEXT I present the below arguments,

First Indian Cloud based CRM solution http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html largest provider of CRM in financial services globally https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017 largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/

I have discussed the issue with the admin who deleted the page but we did not seem to come to any conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RoySmith#Deletion_review_for_CRMNEXT NiK (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse these sources aren't hugely impressive, to be honest. [2] is a press release, which never counts for determining notability. Several others (e.g. [3]) appear to be press releases or barely changed versions of them. The sources are in any case coverage of client acquisitions which is fairly routine. At least one of those sources was in the article at the time of deletion and would have been taken into account by the AfD participants. We don't particularly care how many users it has. Hut 8.5 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse per Hut 8.5. None of the sourcing presented would have changed the AfD outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

* Point taken, but the facts published on Economic times and Business standard give credibility to the fact that CRMNEXT is India's first cloud based CRM and has the largest user base per client (or implementation) that is an achievement in itself for a CRM product. In my opinion the number of users does matter and that is how this organization is able to disrupt the market of established players like Oracle, Microsoft and Sales-forceNiK (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)