Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalThink
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DigitalThink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This defunct company does not enjoy significant, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or even approach WP:CORPDEPTH. I've found no indication of notability researching this subject, and because it doesn't exist anymore, it's unlikely to become more notable in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 00:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Per a plethora of significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."
- Cincinnati company will buy DigitalThink for $120M
- Hyderabad To Be DigitalThink’s Global Development Hub
- McDonald's Corp. hired DigitalThink Inc. of San Francisco to provide the fast-food company with a Web-based, worldwide training program
- DigitalThink offers real-time Web classes
- DigitalThink to reveal new capital
- THE DAY AHEAD: Can investors learn to love DigitalThink?
- Convergys wraps DigitalThink deal.
- Also, here's an interview article. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:48, 14 January 2012 (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.