Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SeaTable

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. Star Mississippi 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeaTable[edit]

[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)

Not yet notable; no reliable sources (not enough). Interviews, paid columns and WP:MILL stuff. Edit.pdf (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TechCrunch article on SeaTable appears to be a genuine piece by one of its journalists (Rita Liao); the WP list of sources says that in that case, it's a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Tech Crunch article above establishes GNG for software. However, despite apparent good faith creation, this article's content is full of marketing jargon and phrasing, so I'm not sure it should remain up in its current form. —siro χ o 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources in German for this German outfit. [1] seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One in Business Insider in German, also seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in another Wikipedia version --DH22 Mim (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DH22 Mim. Each Wikipedia has its own notability rules. enwiki's notability rules are some of the stricter ones, so comparing to other wikis that probably have easier notability rules is not a great argument. See also WP:OTHERLANGS. However, good sources from articles in other wikis could certainly be checked and mentioned here. Finding good sources and linking to them would be a much stronger argument. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently not for the company but rather for their product. I think it should probably be updated to focus more on the company instead, sources like TechCrunch's article would be a better fit that way. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2023 (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.