Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workopolis (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 keep. Joyous! Noise! 03:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Workopolis

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I don't see anything special or remarkable about this company, certainly not GNG-wise, and the coverage is very pedestrian. Does not pass NCORP. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, Websites, and Canada. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A ProQuest search appears to yield numerous results for articles specifically about this company. Mind matrix 18:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've updated it and it seems to satisfy notability criteria. It was one of the top job boards in Canada when it was running. CT55555(talk) 04:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources added by CT55555 with further potential for expansion if someone can access this article by the Calgary Herald on ProQuest. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:25, 20 March 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.