Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber-Duck: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:55, 20 April 2009

Cyber-Duck

Speedy denied, prod removed. This article reads like an advertisment for a web designer which has quite a small portfolio. The awards mentioned seem to have many winners and Cyber-duck's awards are not at the highest level being bronze in one award and commended in the other. The Borehamwoods and Elstree times does not strike me as particularly notable Porturology (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I declined the speedy because importance was asserted, but I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough on this company to justify an article. Would appear to fail WP:CORP, because I don't think that a single article in a local newspaper meets our criteria for multiple reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, this article has references that validate its existence, but just because they are not cited properly, this article shouldn't be deleted. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I saw the Borehamwood & Elstree Times article on the company and the online version doesn't do it much justice.this is a genuine article about a company that made its way through the credit crunch and our uni teacher also shared this with us. I have fixed the reference problem and have fixed the links on the article. Nowhere on the article does it link to the company itself. If the original author doesn't revert the changes on the article to display a disputed POV or advertise, this should be considered a genuine article. SholeemGriffin (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *'''Delete''', I declined the speedy because importance was asserted, but I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough on this company to justify an article.  Would appear to fail [[WP:CORP]], because I don't think that a single article in a local newspaper meets our criteria for multiple reliable sources.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
 *'''Keep''', this article has references that validate its existence, but just because they are not cited properly, this article shouldn't be deleted. <span style="color:steelblue;border-bottom:1px solid green;">Arun Reginald</span> ([[User talk:Arunreginald|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Arunreginald|contribs]]) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Keep''', I saw the Borehamwood & Elstree Times article on the company and the online version doesn't do it much justice.this is a genuine article about a company that made its way through the credit crunch and our uni teacher also shared this with us. I have fixed the reference problem and have fixed the links on the article. Nowhere on the article does it link to the company itself. If the original author doesn't revert the changes on the article to display a disputed POV or advertise, this should be considered a genuine article. [[User:SholeemGriffin|SholeemGriffin]] ([[User talk:SholeemGriffin|talk]]) 09:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)