Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemy Systems


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy Systems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A speedy delete nomination on this COI-troubled article was knocked aside. Nonetheless, it fails the WP:CORP requirements. The three referenced sources do not, I believe, meet the definition of "reliable, independent secondary sources." Nomination withdrawn As the article has been radically overhauled (including the removal of all blatant promotions), it passes notability requirements. I am withdrawing the nomination, and I would like to thank Eastmain and Protonk for their work in whipping this article into proper shape. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's look at the referenced sources. There is no Wikipedia article on the Victoria Advocate, but the newspaper describes itself as "162 years old, Texas' second oldest newspaper, with a daily circulation of 33,082 and Sunday circulation of 34,220. Our daily readership is 70,399  and Sunday is 84,763." See here As for the National Provisioner at http://www.provisioneronline.com/, it describes itself as "The bible to the meat and poultry industry" and  "#1 in circulation to meat and poultry processors (25,078 in total receivership). http://www.provisioneronline.com/HTML/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000262861 (Recall that Alchemy Systems makes software for training employees of meatpacking plants, among other things, which is why the magazine ran the article about the company.) Both seem like reliable sources to me. When I see an article whose notability is questioned, I visit Google News to try to locate reliable sources about the subject. In this case, I was able to find some. --Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/improve News shows something there. I'm sure a stub could be made from the sourcing available free on the web.  I'll start digging. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok that's about it. I looked through Lexis to see the gated news hits from my source above.  Basically aside from the three mentioned in the article all of the sources are press releases or 1-2 liners about hires or executives.  The article has been stubbed and sorted, so I think it is good to go with respect to WP:CORP now (just barely). Protonk (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * not opposed to keep - though it needs work to highten the notability, and to keep the advertisement to a minimum. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:19, 15 July 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.