Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CerebralFix


 * 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 as per the large improvements made after the few Delete !votes; to note, the nominator has changed his implicit Delete !vote to a Keep after said improvements. The idea of a rename has been brought forth, I recommend a RM to reach consensus on that particular issue if you feel it could be controversial enough not to do it outright. (non-admin closure)  Salvidrim!   18:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

CerebralFix

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I tagged this as an advertisement in February. The article has not improved since, and a google search doesn't show any reason why the company should be considered notable gadfium  08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)'


 * Delete No evidence of notability. Creator of article seems to no have made a worthwhile contribution, possible COI. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP is on not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 15:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A couple of articles from New Zealand media can be found but they don't substantiate the claims in this unreferenced article or meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Articles on notable companies are not equivalent to the yellow pages, but this is not a notable company.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment took a quick look - seems to have significant Govt funding and could be notable. Will research further and if appropriate try to bring the article up to speed. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in a very short time I was able to find a significant amount of information in NZ sources about the company. I have not even tried to search globally, but given the projects they are working on Notability seems more than likely, and certainly in the NZ computer scene. I'm no gamer but this should be looked at by those with an interest in that field. NealeFamily (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that the expansion of the article has shown some degree of notability, although I am not entirely sure that it is sufficient. Some of the references are a "round-up" of technology companies in the area, and the sister company Stickman might be the more notable of the two. Changing my implicit !vote as nominator to Weak keep.- gadfium 19:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gadfium - I'll keep digging and see what else there may be about the two. NealeFamily (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename and refocus on Stickmen Studios as the primary company is Stickmen Ltd, with Cerebralfix being virtually a subsidiary. NealeFamily (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that as a result.- gadfium 07:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I do that before the AfD is lifted or should I wait? NealeFamily (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think wait until someone uninvolved closes the AfD.- gadfium 08:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. More discussion on NealeFamil's improvements would be helpful.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Stickmen Studios as the main notability focus of the article now much improved by NealeFamily. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Much improved with sources. I'm not sure if a rename is necessary, but will go along with the majority. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 4 May 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.