Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeBeam

: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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[TradeBeam]]=

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

Though not unambiguous, this appears to be adverspam. The articles provided read like press releases that got incorporated into industry magazines, not actual coverage. Thus I feel that in spite of a few sources, it fails WP:CORP. Tyrenon (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: I definitely got the same feeling that the article sounded more like press releases, and I'm certain that one of them actually is. Just the same, my place isn't to judge the sources' writing, but rather their reliability. I'd say the company just barely meets the notability threshold. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::Well, I've generally interpreted the notability requirements to exclude the reproduction of press releases. This is definitely the case with films, and I consider it to be the clear intention across the board that simply getting a few news releases picked up isn't quite sufficient.Tyrenon (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::That's not an interpretation, the guidelines specifically state that press releases aren't independent sources. Primary source can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I hadn't noticed it on the specific page, but I had noticed it elsewhere. Will keep in mind in the future.Tyrenon (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::See "Primary criteria" at WP:CORP for the specific wording excluding press releases. Drawn Some (talk) 10:17, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - There's [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=tradebeam&cf=all more hits] through google news, but I'm not certain if those are press releases or 3rd party coverage Corpx (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like sources have been updated, which helps add to the page's notability. Now it looks like the page is supported with 3rd party coverage instead of press release-type materials. Do you find these sources still not valid? MarieLG (talk) 13:43, 16 June 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.