Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion-io

: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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Fusion-io]]=

:{{la|Fusion-io}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion-io}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Fusion-io}})

Advertising for non-notable company. There was a PROD on this at one point which got removed. There are no reliable sources for this article, just self-published PR reports. Woogee (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @959  ·  22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This article meets Wikipedia policy by referencing reputable sources: The New York Times and BusinessWeek. The subject of the article is notable. The company produces a product that is helping many companies, including MySpace, Facebook, and Zappos, to significantly reduce their carbon footprint. It's also notable that Steve Wozniak, pioneer of the personal computer, joined the company (he took his first paid job in decades to join as chief scientist).Jodimardesich (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Jodimardesich and others are currently accused as sock puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jodimardesich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet case closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jodimardesich/Archive Jodimardesich (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - The Article is much better then it was before, however there can be improvement. Cutno (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable company, with many third party reliable sources available. Just searching through The Register's archives gives you enough ammunition to forge a decent article. Dutydata (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (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.