Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Crosse 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. and no indication another week will bring on more input Star   Mississippi  13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

La Crosse Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have conducted WP:BEFORE search and I am not finding independent coverage beyond La Crosse Tribune local paper, and repeated mentions of "La Crosse Technology's Atomic Digital Alarm Clock with a retail value of $29.95!" in Popular Science magazine. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Minnesota,  and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep Local newspapers are still good sources. I added a couple more cites from the La Crosse Tribune, but yeah good cites are scarce, and I wouldn't complain if this ends up not being enough.--~ ฅ(ↀωↀ&#61;) neko-channyan 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , WP:NCORP places emphasis on source quality due to susceptibility of companies/organizations article to public relations editing. WP:AUD specifically calls that at least one of the sources providing significant coverage must be regional or national, so based on these guidelines, I find the company unable to satisfy notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:AUD purely local mentions do not contribute towards notability. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.