Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skillit (platform)

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. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skillit (platform)

[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)

Coverage is routine about funding. WP:CORP does not seem to be met. SmartSE (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and New York. SmartSE (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The article is about the software/platform, not about the company itself, so applying WP:NCORP is a stretch. [1], [2],[3], [4], [5] all articles include anaylsis and description of the Skillit platform (and are reliable sources per WP:RS, that's why on Wikipedia article, we have two lines about funding and a separate section about the platform. The article is very much expandable based on the provided references and is an encyclopedic topic in a niche industry like contruction, where software use is minimal. SHilhorst (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.inflection-point.us/ is a random blog - not a reliable source
Can't access but looks like routine coverage of funding
Can't access but looks like routine coverage of funding
Again a routine funding announcement
Again, can't access but from the headline clearly about funding. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I disagree with the author of the article who voted keep - this subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the subject specific notability guideline set out in WP:PRODUCT. Rather, I agree with the source assessment conducted by the nominator, these sources are sheerly routine and not significant coverage at all. Routine articles about funding are not sufficient for notability. Article should be deleted. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this were to be a considered as a product-focused article, then the funding information should be eliminated from consideration as both irrelevant and non-independent (noting that these don't contribute to NCORP notability anyway, largely arise from press releases, and SAAS startups are basically their product). Coverage in listicles and similar minor comparisons of similar products/services doesn't demonstrate individual notability, and I can't see suitable SIGCOV of the platform on a quick BEFORE. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability beyond routine coverage --VViking_TalkEdits 14:28, 30 November 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.