Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Technology


 * 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. Spellcast (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Graham Technology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was a contested back in August (the nominator's concerns were "not notable, unencyclopedic, advertising, POV, corporate puff, conflict of interest"). I am still not convinced that this article satisfies the criteria at WP:CORP. The depth of coverage in the citations, for instance, is questionable: do people think this coverage is significant? The company has apparently recently changed its name after being sold to a consortium (the consortium has no article). So I am taking the opportunity to bring it here for a consensus: if there is no consensus to delete the article, then it should probably be renamed to ciboodle. RobertG &#9836; talk 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Pascal.Tesson deleted ciboodle: 02:24, 11 October 2007 deleted "Ciboodle" (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11))
 * Delete, if the mother company does not assert notability, then certainly this neither. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete originating editor is User:Graham Technology; bulk of edits are either by this editor or IPs assigned to Graham Technology. The article is advertising, although not as blatant as some written by employees or owners of other companies that have been deleted over the past few years. The lack of independent coverage by reliable sources indicate a failure to reach the level needed for WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (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.