Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask

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 - no challenge by deletion advocates to the sources offered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtTask

Spammy article created by a single-purpose account, alreadyu speedied as WP:CSD#G11 twice, external sources are one review and two evidently based on press releases. No data on turnover, not a public company, not fortune 500. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it isn't advertising per se, but the external sources don't seem sufficient to prove notability per WP:CORP. However, the fact that independent third-party sources exist means it may have a claim to notability, although this isn't clear at the moment. Walton monarchist89 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this company does fit the notability criteria per WP:CORP. I am the editor who added the references. AtTask has been covered by several third parties, however I had trouble finding all of them online. In addition, the two that JzG says are "evidently based on press releases" aren't press releases, and weren't issued by the company itself, so I don't see how they should be excluded per the source criteria in WP:CORP.

Also, this article existed for quite a long time before JzG deleted it. Compared to several other related articles, such as 24SevenOffice (which has no more reliable sources than AtTask, but has been left alone because substantial effort has been put in to making it a legitimate article), and others like AceProject which have no notability assertion, the only crime that it seems AtTask has committed is landing on JzG's watchlist as spam. I'd be happy to rewrite some of the copy to make it less like an advertisement, but I want it to be clear that this is a notable corporation per WP:CORP. -- Vms37 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The multiple sources added by Vms37 and these ([1][2]) sufficiently demonstrate notability. -- Black Falcon 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vms37 seems to have made an adequate argument for keeping the article. --JJay 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Another few references for notability. [3] and [4] and [5]. AtTask is project management software. There is a legitimate wiki for Project Management Software. AtTask is a well-known participant in this industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.193.186.130 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: I combined two "keeps" above into one, since they were from the same anonymous user -- Vms37 17:24, 21 February 2007 (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.