Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleutia


 * 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Aleutia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. References are routine annoucement and press-releases, PR from companies.  scope_creep Talk  17:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources do exist and I've just added three of them I found. AmshitBalcon (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good try but those references are routine acquisitions notices which don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. They are routine coverage and fail WP:SIRS.   scope_creep Talk  19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The rationale for the nomination is lack of notability. WP:N says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) like WP:NCORP.
 * To pass GNG the topic requires significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject. The topic is the company and its products and projects.WP:NPRODUCT The mainstream tech press product reviews together with this  are individually reliable, independent, secondary, significant coverage and together sufficient in number to pass GNG and most of WP:NCORP.
 * The one area of NCORP that the topic may fail is WP:ORGSIG. I haven't come across any evaluation of the scope and impact of for example, the African 'School in a box' project. and for this reason I'm opting for "weak keep" rather than "keep". Rupples (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this probably fails WP:SIRS as not being independent. They are such a common thing, these pc reviews. I don't think it is credible to say, "the company products have five reviews, so it must be a notable company". Every product gets some kind of review now and don't think affirms anything. These pc companies are established willy-nilly on an on-going basis all the time you see new products. Its not notable.   scope_creep Talk  15:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Share your concern. The only thing I'd add is that these tech publications likely receive many more products submitted for review than get into print. I guess editorial oversight weed out those not likely to generate much readership interest or have anything to distinguish themselves technology-wise. Rupples (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.