Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergotron


 * 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.  So Why  07:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ergotron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant Promotion. Non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- excluded as per WP:NOTSPAM: clearly created for promotional purposes and this content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. The coverage is routine: patents, products and corporate news. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this has gotten WP:RS of sufficient depth to meet the WP:GNG and be kept with a cleanup: for instance these articles, , and focus on this company as their primary action-taking subject, go into some depth, and were published in widely-circulated, independent periodicals with circulations well above 100,000. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion. While the sources mentioned by GretLomborg above may pass the test for "independent and reliable", the references themselves fail the criteria for establishing notability. fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as the article relies solely on quotations from a company officer.  fails WP:ORGIND since it is a company announcement and also relies on materials published by the company for facts and information.  fails for the same reason.  -- HighKing ++ 16:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per previous editors, company does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and would need to have more verifiable sources to establish this. It currently does not. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2017 (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.