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.
Non notable and promotional / The refs are PR. Even if it is borderline notable, the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG (
talk )
08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
(a) The notability of an interview is not a generally agreed upon standard. The fact that an interview is made and space devoted to it indicates notability.
(b) The Clarion Ledger is entirely about Vu Digital and the need for their product. The second half of the article is with an independent analyst who describes situations where their technology is needed.
(c) The TechCrunch article is about the company, because it is a single product company. Most startup technology companies are single product for their first 3-5 years. As such, the product and the company can not be separated.
Sbwoodside (
talk)
05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Sbwoodside (
talk·contribs) that discussion of the company's product is discussion of the company so helps establish notability. Discussion of a company's history establishes notability. Why not discussion of what the company produces (its products)?
Delete: lack of high quality references, not convinced of notability. The references are to sources like PRNewswire and local Mississippi media. For a technology product/business, there is a lack of references to any more respected technology sources (e.g. journals, the specialist IT press, reports of industry analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester).
SJK (
talk)
05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete A national company should have national sources separate from the press releases. This lacks any real sources. Perhaps a local wiki can cover it.
DreamGuy (
talk)
23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info.
DreamGuy (
talk)
23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Although I still support a separate article, I'd prefer a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion so that any useful information can be merged from
Vu Digital to its parent company's article,
C Spire Wireless, and the redirect can be easily undone if/when Vu Digital has received more coverage about it.
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.
Non notable and promotional / The refs are PR. Even if it is borderline notable, the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG (
talk )
08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
(a) The notability of an interview is not a generally agreed upon standard. The fact that an interview is made and space devoted to it indicates notability.
(b) The Clarion Ledger is entirely about Vu Digital and the need for their product. The second half of the article is with an independent analyst who describes situations where their technology is needed.
(c) The TechCrunch article is about the company, because it is a single product company. Most startup technology companies are single product for their first 3-5 years. As such, the product and the company can not be separated.
Sbwoodside (
talk)
05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Sbwoodside (
talk·contribs) that discussion of the company's product is discussion of the company so helps establish notability. Discussion of a company's history establishes notability. Why not discussion of what the company produces (its products)?
Delete: lack of high quality references, not convinced of notability. The references are to sources like PRNewswire and local Mississippi media. For a technology product/business, there is a lack of references to any more respected technology sources (e.g. journals, the specialist IT press, reports of industry analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester).
SJK (
talk)
05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete A national company should have national sources separate from the press releases. This lacks any real sources. Perhaps a local wiki can cover it.
DreamGuy (
talk)
23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info.
DreamGuy (
talk)
23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Although I still support a separate article, I'd prefer a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion so that any useful information can be merged from
Vu Digital to its parent company's article,
C Spire Wireless, and the redirect can be easily undone if/when Vu Digital has received more coverage about it.
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.