Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mach Speed Technologies: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete''' - The article currently has no third party sources, and I couldn't find any significant third party coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I'm open to changing if someone can prove me wrong, but in its current state, I don't understand how it meets [[WP:GNG|Wikipedia's standards for notability]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - The article currently has no third party sources, and I couldn't find any significant third party coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I'm open to changing if someone can prove me wrong, but in its current state, I don't understand how it meets [[WP:GNG|Wikipedia's standards for notability]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
*Are you even looking for third party sources? Because I clearly see 2 and only one first party source. The article is similar to another perfectly find article [[Coby Electronics]]. [[User:AustralianPope|AustralianPope]] ([[User talk:AustralianPope|talk]]) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
*Are you even looking for third party sources? Because I clearly see 2 and only one first party source. The article is similar to another perfectly find article [[Coby Electronics]]. (Not to mention the above user should really have no opinion here due to conflict of interest)[[User:AustralianPope|AustralianPope]] ([[User talk:AustralianPope|talk]]) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:39, 14 March 2014
- Mach Speed Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Defunct electronics maker. Did it ever meet WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The company was alive from 1989 until 2010, and was a popular company. It was absorbed into the new parent, and looking at other articles such as Hudson Soft absorbed companies seem to be allowed. I believe it meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. AustralianPope (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The article currently has no third party sources, and I couldn't find any significant third party coverage in reliable sources. I'm open to changing if someone can prove me wrong, but in its current state, I don't understand how it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you even looking for third party sources? Because I clearly see 2 and only one first party source. The article is similar to another perfectly find article Coby Electronics. (Not to mention the above user should really have no opinion here due to conflict of interest)AustralianPope (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)