Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialwok

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. The consensus below is that this is a notable company and that problems with article tone can be fixed by editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialwok

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

Article is basically one giant advertisement for the product. It also seems to violate WP:RS, in that three of the four references are to TechCrunch, a tech blog, and the fourth is to another site that is definitely a blog. Further, the article was was created by Druidswok (talk · contribs), who is almost certainly a conflict of interest, and who has also gone around spamming links to the service on various articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states facts related to the startup and the 3 references to Techcrunch are third party journalist articles written about the company. This is not any different from other articles like Yammer they have over 4 links to Techcrunch. Yammer also has multiple mentions in microblogging and other related. How is Yammer not advertising? and Socialwok is?? Btw if you look at the Yammer article creator. It is the CEO himself —

Regarding edits to Google Buzz & Google Apps, you have to have objective about the actual content. In Google Apps - the content added was on Solutions marketplace place that is not related to Socialwok and launched by google itself. URL substantiating the facts of the launch was put in. Link to Socialwok was added as an example of what third party apps are like for the solution marketplace which is listing marketplace for Google Apps

In Google Buzz - the content added was on social protocols that Google announced and the urls are there from google and substantiated. Socialwok has announced support for it just like other players microsoft and yahoo which were listed. The Google Buzz article is on social networking and the existing links include facebook which is a social networking site. Socialwok is a business social networking site for Google Apps and has even greater relevancy to the article.

Pls do not use your own subjective edits on other people's comment. You can vote for the edit. But in this case, we should leave it to another person to give judgement on whether the content is to be added or not. You cannot just delete other people's entries. It is against wikipedia rules of conduct HelloDruidswok ^Druidswok 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: Thank you for stealing my sig. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We're not here to discuss Yammer. The fact is that this article is one big advertisement for Socialwok, and you've gone around spamming links to it on other pages as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Let's be constructive about this. Because if this article is advertising, then pls explain how an article like Yammer is not advertising when it is written by its CEO. Please help me make the article Socialwok not advertising instead of being bias and wanting to just delete. Why don't u help me edit the article such that it is not advertising? That's a lot harder that the easy way out of saying you want to delete the article and depriving other people of the facts of the article. Socialwok by the way is used by over 5k businesses and over 7k users in the world. Druidswok 15:22, March 4, 2010

Delete, unambiguous advertising: a business Social Networking service launched in September 2009.....tightly integrated with the existing workflow of small medium businesses like email. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, I initially put the article up for CSD under G11, but it was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Declining a speedy deletion does not establish that the article shouldn't be deleted as advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I declined speedy deletion because it did not meet the criteria given, and referred it to AFD. seicer | talk | contribs 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edited and support for no deletion: Smerdis of Tlön complaint about the article being advertising. The wording has changed to be neutral. "Unlike most enterprise collaboration tools, Socialwok has integration with the common business workflow like email." Druidswok (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — Druidswok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. This is why people with a reason not to be objective shouldn't write about their businesses or products. The new version is still trying to sell its readers on the advantages this particular product has over other "enterprise collaboration tools". These back-office tools aren't very promising subjects for articles to begin with; the sooner this gets realized, the less friction we're going to get around the edges about an endless series of minor entries in business to business product categories. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If TechCrunch50 is notable (I am not so sure) then this article about the startup that won one of its more important competitions should be notable as well. Article is not exactly NPOV but the blatancy I cannot see (anymore). --Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I mean, I find most of the text on there to be pretty NPOV. Do we really need a single-line quote about its launch? Why are there three screenshots for something of questionable notability? And then we have text like "Socialwok is notably one of the more sophisticated web application to be built on Google's platform" and "Socialwok was launched 5 months ahead of Google Buzz - Google's feed sharing platform". Aside from the fact that neither of those has a reference attached, it's simply inappropriate for Wiki and generally shows a larger issue of advertisement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that a lot of the article is advertising and unencyclopedic. On the other hand, the product is real and has generated a lot of buzz on techie blogs (in which category I am including TechCrunch). However, there has been zero coverage in general-interest or mainstream media, as opposed to blogs. I would propose a compromise: keep the article, but strip out all the advertising stuff ("look at all the wonderful things it does!") and leave it as a stub until it generates some real WP:RS coverage. (BTW Druidswok, your argument and agitation here is not helping your cause - particularly not your repeated argument that other articles are just as bad. Your best bet at this point would be to stand back and let the community evaluate the article on its merits.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substantial coverage is needed, but not necessarily in mainstream media; things that are notable are usually notable in a particular area and will be covered by the media appropriate for that area. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the plentiful coverage in reliable sources. See this article from AsiaOne, this profile in CNET and this one-paragraph coverage from PC Magazine. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (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.