Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GO Science Ltd


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORD my strength 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GO Science Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

They have not yet produced a marketable project-- purely speculative article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep - Having produced a "marketable product" is not a notability requirement. Of the current 25 sources, about half are primary sources, but the other half should be sufficient to establish notability.  The current parent company, Thalassa Holdings, is quite clearly notable (publically traded on London Stock Exchange, for example).  If that article existed I would definitely prefer a merge there since GO Science (which apparently has been renamed "Autonomous Robotics Ltd") is barely notable and Talassa is quite so, but since that isn't an option I say keep.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had reviewed that article more than an year ago as a part of a backlog elimination drive, not much has changed since then. Let's see what editors with expertise in this area have to say. IMHO, it narrowly satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH per ref 7, 8, 12, 20. Weak Keep -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GOLDEN RULE satisfied by references cited in article. ~KvnG 04:54, 2 March 2015 (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.