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.
RAD Data Communications is notable and has an article. This is just added PR for the founder of the company. There is no useful material on anything outside the company except his relatively minor charitable endeavors.
Delete. Looking deeper into the sources, they fail to back-up the claims in the article. The majority of the claims aren't referenced at all. Searching for independent, reliable sources on the subject failed to turn up anything significant.
Gm545 (
talk)
05:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although now the claims are referenced, majority of them are primary sources either way. And yes, majority of the article is a PR as far as primary sources go.--
Mishae (
talk)
00:10, 9 January 2014 (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.
RAD Data Communications is notable and has an article. This is just added PR for the founder of the company. There is no useful material on anything outside the company except his relatively minor charitable endeavors.
Delete. Looking deeper into the sources, they fail to back-up the claims in the article. The majority of the claims aren't referenced at all. Searching for independent, reliable sources on the subject failed to turn up anything significant.
Gm545 (
talk)
05:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although now the claims are referenced, majority of them are primary sources either way. And yes, majority of the article is a PR as far as primary sources go.--
Mishae (
talk)
00:10, 9 January 2014 (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.