Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniblue Systems Limited

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uniblue Systems Limited

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

Previous page Uniblue was speedy deleted as g11/a7. Meat/sock puppet recreated under this new name. Is borderline notable and borderline advert. Rather than just re-speedy, I thought I would nominate and get consensus. Related meat/sock puppets have created pages for all of the products by this company, which lends weight to the advert ruling imo, but I will abide with consensus of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY § g11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I took time to port references to WP:CS2 format (for ease of fact-checking) and performed actual fact-checking (the results can be seen in this revision). I found no reference to establish company's global notability and long-term impact on world's or at least some industry's history. I would also note, that the article, which was written two days ago, multiple times claims that Uniblue Systems Limited is Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, but in fact the company is not listed as such. Overall— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uniblue is note worthy in my opinion. They have been featured in mainstream news like CNN . I investigated the company and they are Microsoft certified as claimed . The link to this is on the original article and also via link on their site ( which leads to Microsoft owned site with their partnership details . From a local perspective they are quite big ( Malta ) they were visited by our prime minister too. Their libraries are extremely valuable to pc specialists like myself in fact processlibrary.com is considered the benchmark referance for all processes on a pc and was named by pcmag as a top 100 classic site. The company also created localcooling.com ( this isn't mentioned or featured on the article or wikipedia and I think it should) . Their rankings on alexa also should be noted. In short I believe they should stay 212.65.121.202 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide a proof link to the Gold Certified membership at least: I went the way you did it and came to the same results as I did before: Microsoft doesn't list them. About local perspective: sure you can find a perspective where they are quite big. Eg. from theirs. An refargding the PCMag ref: ProcessLibrary.com indeed was listed in one of PC Mags Top 100 lists, rated #74. But what does this fact have to do with Uniblue's notability? PC Mag doesn't even mention the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No response from 212.65.121.202 since the deletion period. The article is stained with failed verification templates. The thing is though, I saw an ad on one of the products on TV. If consensus is made for Keep, a complete rewrite is mandatory for this article. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding the reliable sources here. And, as noted, it appears to be advertising. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS) for this topic. There are many mentions in blogs and many news releases, but not coverage in RS. Furthermore, Google Books searches include passing mentions: [1], [2], but not much else. However, if IP user 212.65.121.202 is able to provide the sources they claim, (per the comment above in this discussion), then this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (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.