Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quallion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:04, 24 April 2011

Quallion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like an advertisement, contents copied from website, primary author seems to have conflict of interest. Either a complete rewrite or deletion is necessary. Hello71 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does require re-writing, but there are a lot of citations from real publications. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability seems almost non-existent. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another world leader. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - Although poorly written, WP:ORGIN, states that Notable means "attracting notice." and it does not necessarily need to have "fame". Also, it has to have multiple reliable sources. Subject has attracted notice of Forbes Magazine [1], Financial Times [2], LA Times [3] as well as government agencies [4]. It satisfies WP:NCORP and I myself found plenty of articles ([5] [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] , [11]) that could improve the quality of this entry once notability has been established. HOWEVER, it is important do DELETE and cleanup all mentions of products that the company makes as it reads like an advertisement. On a semi-related note, I would suggest for us to do a cleanup of notability on some businesses in the "category:Companies of Brazil" as there are many shady unsourced companies in there in which the main sources are press releases and whose notability is questionable. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep it, burn it, I don't care — one could make a case either way... But for the love of Random Holy Deity, please despam this thing!!! Carrite (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company is not notable. One article on it in Forbes does not make it notable, and the other sources are trade journals. Perchloric (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd ask you to re-consider this point. This article seems to completely satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as in "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. ". Although the depth of coverage is substantial already, this article STILL has multiple sources like the ones I mentioned above. Further, the same notability criteria says: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." even if only Forbes was the single source, as long as the coverage is not trivial, it would be enough to establish notability BUT in this case MULTIPLE articles re-inforce the notability of this company. Take a look at my rationale above. --Loukinho (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Trouble is, some of those articles, if you look closely, are just press releases from the company itself (look for "Source:Quallion" at the end), and the others tend to mention the company in passing as an example to illustrate a point about stimulus funding. From the sources you have accumulated, I can't see anything that makes Quallion itself notable. The coverage seems "Trivial or incidental", which is exactly what WP:CORP gives as a sign of being non-notable. If you had to summarize in 1 sentence, what would you say Quallion is notable for? Perchloric (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * '''Delete'''  The company is not notable. One article on it in Forbes does not make it notable, and the other sources are trade journals. [[User:Perchloric|Perchloric]] ([[User talk:Perchloric|talk]]) 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 ** '''Comment''' - I'd ask you to re-consider this point. This article seems to completely satisfy [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] as in "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. ". Although the depth of coverage is substantial already, this article STILL has multiple sources like the ones I mentioned above. Further, the same notability criteria says: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." even if only Forbes was the single source, as long as the coverage is not trivial, it would be enough to establish notability BUT in this case MULTIPLE articles re-inforce the notability of this company. Take a look at my rationale above. --[[User:Loukinho|Loukinho]] ([[User talk:Loukinho|talk]]) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
+** '''Response''' Trouble is, some of those articles, if you look closely, are just press releases from the company itself (look for "Source:Quallion" at the end), and the others tend to mention the company in passing as an example to illustrate a point about stimulus funding. From the sources you have accumulated, I can't see anything that makes Quallion itself notable. The coverage seems "Trivial or incidental", which is exactly what [[WP:CORP]] gives as a sign of being non-notable. If you had to summarize in 1 sentence, what would you say Quallion is notable for? [[User:Perchloric|Perchloric]] ([[User talk:Perchloric|talk]]) 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)