Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (3rd 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 keep. "Page creator was paid to write this" as-is is not yet a reason to delete anything Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (company)[edit]

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

Written up in a paid editing stint. Low quality promotion Carl Fredrik^talk 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question The most recent nomination was closed as keep a month ago - can you give more explanation for why it needs another discussion, such as any supporting evidence for the article having been written as paid editing? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Company is obviously notable, paid editing or not. There is no WP:PROMO language as the nominator claims._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per the last AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am pleased with the improvements previously made to the article. If the article fell victim to "brochure" appearances, as one of the ongoing editors in its first years, I take that as constructive criticism (and an incidental testament to improved article standards). As the article creator, I stand by my statements that I have NO FINANCIAL CONNECTION or even a DIRECT PERSONAL CONNECTION to the company, its founders, or any employees, and I take strong exception to any allegations otherwise. This is a slur. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH per my WP:BEFORE source searches. See source examples below. The article does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Newsweek
Beginning Ruby: From Novice to Professional
The Globe and Mail
Time magazine (subscription required)
Wired
Wired
Inbound Marketing
The Lawyer's Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies. Chapter 14. pp. 105–112.
PC Magazine
PC Magazine
Crains Chicago Business
PC World
Making the Most of the Cloud
The Whuffie Factor. pp. 192–194 ...(subscription required)
Dreaming in Code
Business Insider
The Register
Business Insider
Basecamp for Beginners. Cengage Learning. 320 pages.
Sams Teach Yourself Basecamp in 10 Minutes. Pearson Education. 256 pages.

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.