Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueTie (3rd nomination)

:{{la|BlueTie}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlueTie_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|BlueTie}})

Does not cite any reliable sources to show notability. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The reason given by the nominator is fairly certainly correct so far as the article stands - of the four references given in the article, one is BlueTie itself, two are primary (official awards lists from the awarding organisations - the awards themselves look pretty minor) and one is broken enough that it's only possible to find what it was meant to point to by diving back into the article's history. However, I am left wondering how far, if at all, the nominator looked for further sources. The broken reference originally pointed to [http://www.informationweek.co.uk/bluetie-wins-patent-for-recognition-tech/56800112 this item] from Information Week, which probably explains how this article survived AfD in 2009 - I would regard Information Week as a generally reliable source, though this particular item looks like a summarised press release (probably OK for notability by 2009 standards, probably at most OK for verifiability now). However, [http://www.informationweek.co.uk/review-bluetie-does-collaboration-on-dem/196702375 this review], also from Information Week, and [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2060346,00.asp this one] from PC Magazine, both look substantial enough to at least come close to providing a borderline keep. PWilkinson (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 01:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete — The Information Week review is insubstantial especially as to WP:CORPDEPTH. The PC Magazine review is closer to substantial, but it alone isn't multiple. Defending patents and press release news isn't coverage of the company itself, nor is it reliable when fodder news is clearly based on press releases. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.