Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Socialtext

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialtext 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)

PROD is deleted. The company failed WP:CORPDEPTH. The only source that is used is only talking about the merger of the company, which is clearly shown by the guideline as trivial coverage. A search on Google per WP:BEFORE only turns up small coverage about its products, no in-depth coverage. The top search result in Google is this Wikipedia article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and California. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Initially I thought the same, which is why I proposed the article for deletion in the first place. However, I did manage to find multiple sources (although old) discussing the subject, so even though the company is history, I think it’s still notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. Sources I found: [1][2][3][4][5]

Note: I’m new to editing Wikipedia. Any feedback left on my talk page is highly appreciated. Arxion (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable at the time (2002-2012), and in the history of wikis. That three editors thought it should be deleted points to the long-term decay of our current tools for tracking notability. That approach over time will turn most blue-linked lists into red-links... – SJ + 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article are enouigh, plus the sources @Arxion: found, and a quick search in Ebscohost found a decent write-up in The Guardian [6], a more real write-up about their hackathons [7]: Socialtext Launches Widget Wednesday: a Distributed Hackathon for Widgets & Mashups, and a decent size write-up in EWeek [8]: Socialtext's spreadsheet in a wiki. (cover story). This is above-average, in my experience, notable for a company of its size and era. Just it's defunct and there isn't current discussion about it doesn't change it's overall notability. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Sources shown by Arxion is enough to establish notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (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.