Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRU Acquisition Group, LLC

: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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

=[[:CRU Acquisition Group, LLC]]=

:{{la|CRU Acquisition Group, LLC}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CRU_Acquisition_Group,_LLC Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|CRU Acquisition Group, LLC}})

Fails to meet notability bar per WP:NCORP or other suitable standard. Creator immediately de-PRODded without substantial improvement so we are obliged to dicuss via AfD. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I genuinely believe this article is for a notable company and shouldn't be deleted. What resources can I look at to learn more about the policy you are trying to enforce? Does this article require more sources? What kind?Faradorian (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To better prove the notability of this article I have added more sources, including Macworld and PC Mag. Please let me know what you all think, I'm ready to debate. Thanks! Faradorian (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Delete the press releases (Marketwired), company website, reprint of the annual report, routine business directory listing (search.sunbiz.org) and some WordPress blog (http://www.knuterikevensen.com). The Columbian report of a routine transaction can go too, and it looks suspiciously press-release-y. Then find some real in-depth sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:While initial author's contributions are mainly from PR sources, one could argue the same thing for other companies in this genre. Synology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synology_Inc.) and Drobo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drobo) both link and cite various products and PR articles for their pages. If author is providing legitimate external sources, why should they not be granted? ☆ Parzival Tron Neo (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks for the feedback. This process has been a little opaque, so it's nice to read some helpful pointers. I have gone ahead and removed those sources, replacing them with more notable news sources. Faradorian (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What’s the next step? Do we vote? Faradorian (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

:We are voting already (although more a collection of opinions than a strict vote). Just nobody has cast yet. I suspect giving you time to really demonstrate notability if it exists. There's no rush. If a consensus isn't clear after about a week, the discussion can be extended. My hunch so far is notability has not been demonstrated, but I haven't researched any further myself. I suggest reading the relevant policy on corporate notability and seeing what you can come up with, then put it in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, references are either not about the company (the subject of this article) but about some of the products, or are based on company announcements. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:SIGCOV. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.

:Keep There is one source that is based on a company announcement – a significant tech news source reporting on an acquisition. I don't understand how you can separate a company from its products. As a hardware company, what is being shipped is what makes the company notable. Many American cinemas receive their drives regularly to transport movies, and their products have been written about in Wired, Macworld, and PC Mag. Faradorian (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article mostly discuss individual products rather than the company itself, and I haven't been able to find any other significant coverage in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (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.