Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technalign

: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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Technalign]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technalign}}

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

This fails WP:CORP, lacks enough reputable & verified sources. JBsupreme (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Has an article by the Reuters as a source. A quick Google will show plenty more third party information and sources on the company. 98.211.9.142 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL, you must be kidding. That is not a Reuters article. It is a press release. [http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS166219+23-Apr-2008+MW20080423] JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the Reuters link is a press release, other coverage can be found at

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Technalign including http://www.silicon.fr/fr/silicon/special-report/2003/07/22/attaque-routeurs-cisco-premier-bilan --Eastmain (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article does not assert subject's notability. Press releases and minor news items about a merger do not demonstrate sufficiently notability to warrant an article.  Xihr  23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per Xihr, the press releases and trivial coverage do not substantiate the level of sourcing required as per WP:CORP guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per JBsupreme, Xihr and RFerreira - the English language 'references' are press releases - if you can't immediately tell from the style of language, I suggest you copy a chunk of the text into a search engine and see for yourself. Also, the coverage in the French language reference is trivial. Finally, indicating there are lots of results for a web search isn't a convincing argument. PhilKnight (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (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.