Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Technology

:{{la|Galaxy Technology}} ([{{fullurl:Galaxy Technology|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Technology}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

While article isn't obviously a PR effort, the company hardly scratches the surface of notability (the one hit, in German, in a [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=ev2&q=%22galaxy%20technology%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn Google News] search is about trade name infringement, and the archives don't give much more either--but a lot more press releases). I can't find any independent and in-depth coverage of the company, and until that coverage turns up, the article, in my opinion, should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to fail WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- I'm not sure what nominator's looking for, but I found a few resources: ([http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29370334_ITM], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-50056029.html], [http://www.ameinfo.com/41530.html], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19600396.html], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-147691404.html]). Plus there is some mention about name infringement, but I think I've narrowed it down to company in question. To me, these sources dignify significant coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

::I would be looking for things that aren't press releases--the five links you gave are all to press releases, and those are specifically excluded under WP:CORP, see Primary Criteria. I am not trying to deny that the company exists; I see no notability, and primary sources, which one could call these press releases if one is in a kind mood, do not help establish that. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I think that at least some of those articles, viz. links 1, 3 and 5 can qualify as news articles. I accept that 2 and 4 are press releases, albeit from other companies and not Galaxy. The most notable thing I found about the company is its partnership with nvidia. But there is no indication of exclusivity in that partnership. Overall, I agree with your assessment and am not particularly gung-ho about the overall notability. ^LeaveSleaves 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if we can straighten it out. There's more in google News when you look in the archive also. But there seems to be more than one company involved here, There's the computer graphics card company in the article with an adequate ref. at [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29370334_ITM] , there's a company selling backup software with a very good RS [http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2002/04/08/186311/compaq-adds-galaxy-flavour-to-sanworks-suite.htm] and there's a possible There's a network company [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4065066/Xilinx-and-Samsung-Team-to.html] and there'swhat seems to be a parent company of at least some of these [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-147691404.html]. DGG (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

::Links 7 and 8 that you entered above is actually about a technology named "Galaxy" and not the company itself. When I looked for sources, I also found these links, but on closer examination it is clear that they have nothing to do with this company. ^LeaveSleaves 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. While mentions of the company pop up in the news and we can verify its existance, there is no batch of independant reliable third-party sources written about the company to establish its notabilty. Themfromspace (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments above. Noticed I hadn't voted. ^LeaveSleaves 12:17, 24 January 2009 (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.