Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WatchDox

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. (non-admin closure) HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WatchDox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. All the sources are standard business stuff - directory listing, notices of acquisitions etc. The rest appear to be press releases or reported interviews with key staff. Nothing here is independent, reliable and speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is evidence of notability. WatchDox has received significant coverage in reliable sources per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page", "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input", and "A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem... they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems." Thinker78 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those three sources confer notability. All are about a buyout of the company by Apple. None give the company itself and its products any notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although WatchDox may be just a little notable, I think it may qualify to be notable for Wikipedia standards. I found other reliable sources where WatchDox receives significant coverage -other than the Blackberry acquisition: Integration developer news, Wired and another article of Forbes. Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources by Thinker78 are more than mere mention and do indeed show meeting GNG. Only 2 of the sources can be called mere mention but summing the remaining will pass WP:GNG and is clear sign that more may exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 6 December 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.