- 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. After two relistings, the consensus cannot be read any other way. I don't see that further relisting, at this time, would be useful. Deor ( talk) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Creare LLC ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kaszeta (creator) with the following rationale (on talk) "Concerning the delete request... a quick check of Google Scholar indicates contributions in several technology areas (cryogenics, vacuum pumps, computational fluid dynamics) and several mentions in government publications for contributions to the SBIR project. As written, the article definitely needs improvement and cleanup, but probably not deletion". While the company products are occasionally mention (on the web, and in scholarly publications), I do not see how this makes the company notable, per cited policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Simply nothing better for this article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 03:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The references in GS are sufficient to convince me it is probably a major company in at least one of its special fields. But, Kaszeta, they must be added. It's your responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a little unclear on what [1] could be read as signficant coverage, Hoover's gives them revenue of 400K, Gnews comes up with a few thousand feet of office space. I don't see anything that gives me a sense that CORPDEPTH is likely to be met, but I'd love someone to show me different. -- joe decker talk 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - no indication of notability provided nor can I find anything significant in Google. Citobun ( talk) 13:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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. After two relistings, the consensus cannot be read any other way. I don't see that further relisting, at this time, would be useful. Deor ( talk) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Creare LLC ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kaszeta (creator) with the following rationale (on talk) "Concerning the delete request... a quick check of Google Scholar indicates contributions in several technology areas (cryogenics, vacuum pumps, computational fluid dynamics) and several mentions in government publications for contributions to the SBIR project. As written, the article definitely needs improvement and cleanup, but probably not deletion". While the company products are occasionally mention (on the web, and in scholarly publications), I do not see how this makes the company notable, per cited policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Simply nothing better for this article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 03:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The references in GS are sufficient to convince me it is probably a major company in at least one of its special fields. But, Kaszeta, they must be added. It's your responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a little unclear on what [1] could be read as signficant coverage, Hoover's gives them revenue of 400K, Gnews comes up with a few thousand feet of office space. I don't see anything that gives me a sense that CORPDEPTH is likely to be met, but I'd love someone to show me different. -- joe decker talk 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - no indication of notability provided nor can I find anything significant in Google. Citobun ( talk) 13:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.