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.
Delete I thought I'd actually nominated this as I did a full before and found it lacked the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in signficant detail we expect for NCORP articles. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
04:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I have done better research and updated the article with proper secondary sources. It was careless from my part not noticing press releases. What are the other changes you might suggest to improve the article quality? Thanks
Smehh (
talk)
15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I re-read just now every one of the proposed sources, to make sure I'm not just going by impressions. Everything is still PR, except 3,4, and 9 which are more accurately termed mere notices, and 6 is an enthusiastically uncritical review--even if it is naïvely seen as a honest 3rd party source, it wouldn't be enough to justify an article. . Two of the blatant indications here are that some of the pr references are almost identical, and that many of them quote an interview with the firm's executive as most of the content. The attempt to keep this article has been advertised off-WP, and small amounts of money offered to those saying keep. I think a snow close is appropriate. Not speedy, for we need to be able to use G5 for the probable future re-creations. DGG (
talk )
19:28, 12 July 2019 (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.
Delete I thought I'd actually nominated this as I did a full before and found it lacked the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in signficant detail we expect for NCORP articles. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
04:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I have done better research and updated the article with proper secondary sources. It was careless from my part not noticing press releases. What are the other changes you might suggest to improve the article quality? Thanks
Smehh (
talk)
15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I re-read just now every one of the proposed sources, to make sure I'm not just going by impressions. Everything is still PR, except 3,4, and 9 which are more accurately termed mere notices, and 6 is an enthusiastically uncritical review--even if it is naïvely seen as a honest 3rd party source, it wouldn't be enough to justify an article. . Two of the blatant indications here are that some of the pr references are almost identical, and that many of them quote an interview with the firm's executive as most of the content. The attempt to keep this article has been advertised off-WP, and small amounts of money offered to those saying keep. I think a snow close is appropriate. Not speedy, for we need to be able to use G5 for the probable future re-creations. DGG (
talk )
19:28, 12 July 2019 (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.