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. Content is irredeemably promotional in nature. No prejudice toward re-creating the article with proper sourcing and structure. – Juliancolton |
Talk 02:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Questionably notable and improvable company as the best I found was
this (almost at the bottom),
this,
this,
this and finally
this looks like another company, from Singapore; this was started by an SPA in December 2008 and it hasn't changed much since. Pinging
Hmains,
Mean as custard,
Espresso Addict,
DGG and
Oo7565.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Reduce to stub - seems notable, but very promotional - remove all references to "
solutions". . .
Mean as custard (
talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
delete. and permit re-creation. I think $1 billion companies are usually notable, but this should be rewritten from scratch. DGG (
talk ) 23:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
NeutralWeak keep but would accept "delete and permit recreation". The subject is notable - listed in Taipei Exchange; subject of regular coverage in mainstream media in Taiwan about its technological innovation, e.g. its robots made the news twice in 2014
[1];
[2][3]; its "smart city" initiative in 2014
[4]; its latest medical venture made news in many media sources
[5][6]. But I agree we should rewrite the article substantially and I personally haven't got time for that.
Deryck C. 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 8 November 2015 (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.
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. Content is irredeemably promotional in nature. No prejudice toward re-creating the article with proper sourcing and structure. – Juliancolton |
Talk 02:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Questionably notable and improvable company as the best I found was
this (almost at the bottom),
this,
this,
this and finally
this looks like another company, from Singapore; this was started by an SPA in December 2008 and it hasn't changed much since. Pinging
Hmains,
Mean as custard,
Espresso Addict,
DGG and
Oo7565.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Reduce to stub - seems notable, but very promotional - remove all references to "
solutions". . .
Mean as custard (
talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
delete. and permit re-creation. I think $1 billion companies are usually notable, but this should be rewritten from scratch. DGG (
talk ) 23:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
NeutralWeak keep but would accept "delete and permit recreation". The subject is notable - listed in Taipei Exchange; subject of regular coverage in mainstream media in Taiwan about its technological innovation, e.g. its robots made the news twice in 2014
[1];
[2][3]; its "smart city" initiative in 2014
[4]; its latest medical venture made news in many media sources
[5][6]. But I agree we should rewrite the article substantially and I personally haven't got time for that.
Deryck C. 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 8 November 2015 (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.