Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apogee Instruments, Inc.


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apogee Instruments, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a company that seems to fail WP:CORP; it has been created twice by an SPA, with the previous one deleted because of copyvio issues. I believe the purpose of this is purely promotional, since I cannot establish that the company is actually notable in any way, regardless of the attempt to claim notability for the founder. If sources are not found and the article is deleted, the title should probably also be salted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * [Keep] I believe Apogee Instruments is notable because innumerable scientific research studies have been conducted using Apogee Instruments research grade scientific products. Researchers always name the the type and model of instruments they use when making measurements in their results to establish the level of accuracy of the results, as well as enabling other researchers to reproduce the results. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apogee+instruments+pyranometer&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45 and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=apogee+instruments+quantum+sensors&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45 Myniceguy (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Myniceguy: I've taken the liberty of adding "keep" in front of your comment, which is obviously your intention, after the conventional style here. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to admit I didn't think to search in that context. I will let other editors more familiar with the subject matter to chime in. Not sure if that in and of itself can establish notability. If that is the case then I will gladly withdraw the AFD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom and this is yet another example of how much WP has become a spam magnet and it is another increment towards WP becoming a business directory. We need to write a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM --Artene50 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 01:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Myniceguy is the creator of this unnotable company and so its not a surprise that he would vote to keep this article. --Artene50 (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Puffery --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 30 December 2012 (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.