rdfs:comment
| - After working on this article to remove copyvio, sources that don't back the claims, puffery, and looking at the talk page and the scant mention of this company in the sources added to make it notable (which only mention it as one among others), and doing a search, I've come to the conclusion that this company doesn't meet our criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
abstract
| - After working on this article to remove copyvio, sources that don't back the claims, puffery, and looking at the talk page and the scant mention of this company in the sources added to make it notable (which only mention it as one among others), and doing a search, I've come to the conclusion that this company doesn't meet our criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep: per The New York Times and GScholar.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as I can find no significant coverage about the company. The NY Times article is a passing mention. A pointer to Google Scholar search results are not useful as search results themselves tell us nothing without looking at the sources. This paper seems to look at them in a little more depth but is only cited once. Not exactly a resounding endoresement of notice being taken. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
|