Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetrium

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aetrium

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

No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Aetrium is publicly-traded, this is not generally accepted as enough to preserve notability according to WP:LISTED. What little coverage in third-party sources is available mostly concerns stock prices and valuation or routine corporate communications that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The only non-routing coverage concerns a recently-concluded proxy fight that ousted the previous management of the company. If this were a person, it would be a WP:BLP1E. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.