The result of the discussion was: keep. There were five responses in response to the nomination, one of which was only a comment. Of the other four responses, all favoured either keep or weak keep (split 50/50). The arguments put forward generally centered around WP:G11 by waiting for the six-month period to expire at which point it could be speedily deleted, provided it was not unambiguous promotion or advertising. The article has a number of reliable sources, though the degree to which they speak to significant coverage is unknown. Nevertheless, given that we have pre-established criteria for speedy deletion, concuring with the consensus, it does seem reasonable to wait it out. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T· C 19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. I know we don't normally hold drafts to NCORP, but this was created in mainspace and moved to draft by DGG; had it not been moved to draft, it would have surely been deleted at AfD, so holding it to that same standard here doesn't seem unreasonable.
Since being moved here, two months ago, it had a single source added, which is just a passing mention, and then immediately submitted for review. The article itself is a classic example of WP:REFBOMBing and almost certinly WP:UPE. A previous version of Tungsten Branding was deleted under G11 back in 2013. The current version isn't any better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability).
The result of the discussion was: keep. There were five responses in response to the nomination, one of which was only a comment. Of the other four responses, all favoured either keep or weak keep (split 50/50). The arguments put forward generally centered around WP:G11 by waiting for the six-month period to expire at which point it could be speedily deleted, provided it was not unambiguous promotion or advertising. The article has a number of reliable sources, though the degree to which they speak to significant coverage is unknown. Nevertheless, given that we have pre-established criteria for speedy deletion, concuring with the consensus, it does seem reasonable to wait it out. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T· C 19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. I know we don't normally hold drafts to NCORP, but this was created in mainspace and moved to draft by DGG; had it not been moved to draft, it would have surely been deleted at AfD, so holding it to that same standard here doesn't seem unreasonable.
Since being moved here, two months ago, it had a single source added, which is just a passing mention, and then immediately submitted for review. The article itself is a classic example of WP:REFBOMBing and almost certinly WP:UPE. A previous version of Tungsten Branding was deleted under G11 back in 2013. The current version isn't any better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability).