Talk:Solmetric

AfC comments
Notability appears to be established by:, , , ,
 * Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng.
 * If these sources "establish notability" what are they doing here in the talk page instead of being in the article? -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone decides to nominate this for deletion, I don't need to go find them again to try to defend it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really what Gnome asked, but thank you for the additional source set in any case. Please note that source 4 is a dead link. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try again: Because reviewers are not obliged to improve drafts they accept. ~Kvng (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I commented on the sources at the AfD. None of those sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. To be specific (and I'm referencing by the order at AfD), the first reference is based on a company announcement on the acquisition and relies extensively on quotations from company sources. Fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second mentioned the company in passing but is primarily concerned with the fate of their most popular produce. The topic of this article is the company and not the product. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third reference is in relation to an award for the product at "Le salon des énergies renouvelables" and the company gets a mention in-passing, fails for the same reason and the second reference. The fourth reference doesn't discuss the company at all and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finding references that meet the criteria for establishing notability isn't about looking for any mention by searching in Google. The article must be provide intellectually independent opinion/analysis/commentary about the company itself.  HighKing++ 16:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)