Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource Guru (2nd 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 delete. So Why 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Guru

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

Per source searches, not finding enough coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The current references in the article are all WP:SPS. Basically promotional cruft, which even includes the pricing: $2.50 per month per person. Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue nor a replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Added additional source, removed pricing. I can understand the reasons for deletion but looking back at my comments from the last deletion nomination and I still see a number of similar companies with far worse articles not even nominated. It is not an excuse (still) but this is a strong company making improvements, growing with new sources. ~ Ablaze (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute or addendum to a corporate website. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:32, 19 August 2017 (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.