Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powtoon

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Powtoon}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Powtoon}})

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/powtoon][https://www.animationmagazine.net/2016/12/powtoon-speaks-universal-language-of-cartoons/][https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-comeback-of-cartoons-powtoons-animation-pumps-up-presentations/], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pedagogy_Driven_Technology_Integration_i/y2HZEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Powtoon%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Decentralizing_the_Online_Experience_Wit/j8j8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Powtoon%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA300&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/2D_Animation/pwQ6EQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Powtoon%22], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Public_Relations_Theory/tlTqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Powtoon%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT98&printsec=frontcover]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: The first link Anerdw is an entire book evaluating the subject pedagogically and without any apparent COI. The other links Anerdw provides aren't that crazy notable, but also do very much offer significant coverage. The second link nom (Bridget) provides is a long PCMag review, and it does provide analysis (e.g. {{tq|was disheartened not to have access to snapping guides for centering and aligning}}); I doubt nom's interpretation of CorpDepth anyways: {{tq|Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product}}. Even without analysis, description would be enough under the "or". To me, CorpDepth is just something that excludes e.g. "articles" whose only independent content is routine stuff like "Company got $1 billion in founding round B, 14% of which was from famed Corpo C. Additionally, 43% of this contribution was from Corpo D, while 18% was from famed VC...." etc. Any coverage that {{tq|provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization }} should qualify for the SigCov criteria. In my experience, the precedent at AfD is that tech publications and product reviews are not disqualified form notability considerations, and such is also the opinion of the oft-cited essay WP:NSOFTWARE. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:

:

{{clear}}

: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.