Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behance

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behance

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

No evidence of notability. Was written like SEO spam till yesterday. Two stories are just about it's sale to Adobe. Only one short article about it. The other references are pay-to-enter "awards". OKNoah (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really unfortunate. Behance produced some innovative organizational products in its early years and seemed like a very interesting company and culture. But it has changed almost completely since Adobe purchased it and perhaps that explains the sorry state of the article today. It appears the "Action Method" products are now produced and sold elsewhere under a license of some sort. It would be wonderful if someone with knowledge of the company's early days could edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.164.179 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is great, but first-hand info isn't. We need proof it's notable. --OKNoah (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily. I'd entertain a redirect just in terms of building it out summary style, but there's no way this is non-notable enough for deletion. Here are a series of news postings from The Next Web about the site/company that are fine on its own. Here's another dedicated article from Business Insider. And then there's a bunch of coverage on the acquisition, e.g., [1]. czar ♔ 02:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the most notable thing referenced seems to be the sale to Adobe. --OKNoah (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see that first external link for a series of articles that should easily confer notability of the subject czar ♔ 04:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advert language is being added back to the article, but proof of notability is not. --OKNoah (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the several links I cited above, if you're interested in the article. There's no deadline czar ♔ 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet minimum WP:GNG. The article does need a ton of work, but that is not a reason to delete. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a lot of coverage, but enough to meet our notability standards. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:20, 23 May 2014 (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.