Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource Guru

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 no consensus. May need another and more thorough discussion. Sandstein 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Guru[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability a third party ref from techcrunch is not by itself sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added additional sources such as Dow Jones and articles written about company. ~ Ablaze (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even with Dow Jones, this is still questionable and my searches have found nothing solidly better convincing and that's not surprising considering the company was founded about 5 years ago or so. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you think it is questionable and I don't want to just compare it to other similar, less sourced, yet not considered for deletion articles. The company has been mentioned in numerous articles and blogs such as Small Business Trends, Capterra, Docurated and another TechCrunch article to name a few. I will however refer to DGG and your more experienced judgement since you seem to focus a lot more on articles for deletion that I do. For the record I have never worked for the company. I was only trying to document a small UK based company who seem to be constantly tweaking and improving themselves if you read their blog. ~ Ablaze (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actual evidence that nominator could not find (but some was there nonetheless) has been added since nomination. DeVerm (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even considering the apparently new improvements, the article is still not solidly convincing and because it's still a somewhat newly started company, it's also unlikely there's anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The current references in the article are all WP:SPS. I couldn't find anything better on searching online either. I would be glad to change my decision if someone can show me coverage in reliable and independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2016 (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.