Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Links (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Editors advocating deletion claimed only deficiencies in the current article, and failed to show how any future article would not meet inclusion criteria. See also WP:PROBLEMS, WP:DEADLINE. Skomorokh 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical Links
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Firm with questionable notability. Of the five references, two are trivial, and the other three are primary. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - User's also created a number of redirects to this page, including "disambiguation" redirects that are simply page copies (which have been modified by other editors into redirects). Any closing admin should check the "what links here" redirect links. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - The company's EdgeBox product is covered in over 100 RS . Additional sources specifically about the company can be found via  (includes many false positives). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, it feels very self promotional, as if they're advertising.  Second, the article's resources rely twice on their own website, once on somebody's LinkedIn profile, and eliminating those, two articles about them.  I'd feel better about t sif somebody could get some more in there, but the self-promotion makes me want to G11 and have somebody else start over.  Note the COI as described. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG through RS in 1993, RS in 1995, RS in 1999, RS in 2000 and 2001, RS in 2003, RS in 2004 and 2005, RS in 200 and 2007, RS in 2008 and 2009, etc., I believe current concerns over issues with sourcing or sense of advert can be addressd through normal editing and cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All you've done is put links up for every sub-year under the original google news search. Many of these articles are not viewable. Did you actually look at them to asses that they asserted notability? Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup.... sure did. The nominator wrote "Of the five references, two are trivial, and the other three are primary"... so my serach results were offered to show that his concern could be met through the course of normal editing, as common sense allows me to accept that of the 100+ reliable sources shown by that search,  many could be more-then-trival.  Not being viewable online is of no concern, as Wikipedia does not mandate all sources to be available online... visiting a library and looking at hardcopies of articles is an acceptable option. The search allows a reasonable presumption that they exist and are available... and that concerns over issues with sourcing or sense of advert can be addressed through normal editing and cleanup.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (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.