Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driptech

: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 keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 02:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Driptech]]=

:{{la|Driptech}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Driptech Stats])

:({{Find sources|Driptech}})

Delete per WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Small businesses can be notable, especially if they have a distinctive story and an innovative product line, and have been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources. In this case, the coverage has been in the highest quality sources in both India and the United States, such as the [http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/could-a-cheap-drip-system-rescue-indias-farmers/ New York Times], the [http://www.driptech.com/media/timesofindiaeducation.pdf Times of India], the [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/04/BUVJ18D9SB.DTL San Francisco Chronicle], the [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703951704576092010276714424.html#articleTabs%3Darticle Wall Street Journal], the [http://www.driptech.com/media/driptech_ETM_2011_JAN.pdf Economic Times], [http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/agriculture/article1103190.ece The Hindu], the [http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/04/26/smallb3.html Silicon Valley Business Journal] and [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_47/b4156053748076.htm?chan=magazine+channel_special+report Bloomberg Businessweek]. The quality of these sources, and many others, makes it clear that this particular small business is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep WP:ORG: "...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources...If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited..." I think the sources listed by Cullen (although the NYTimes one is a blog) meet the criteria. Barely.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy Keep - The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH, part of the WP:ORG page, per:

:* Significant coverage: [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_47/b4156053748076.htm?chan=magazine+channel_special+report]

:* Significant coverage: [http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/agriculture/article1103190.ece]

:* Significant newsblog coverage: [http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/could-a-cheap-drip-system-rescue-indias-farmers/]

:* Significant coverage: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703951704576092010276714424.html]

:* Short article, yet significant coverage (entire article about the product): [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-14/hubli/28355949_1_drip-irrigation-driptech-marginal-farmers]

::{{mdash}}Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: by the given sources.-- Dewritech (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2012 (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.