Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbo 41414


 * 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. I looked at the sources personally and think they establish some level notability, the nominator apparently doesn't agree. So no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Limbo 41414

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not assert notability under WP:CORP. Was nominated as a prod but tag was removed so bringing it here. Article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedic entry. Vegaswikian 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable...Balloonman 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references listed do not qualify as independent third-party reliable sources.  The article has no content that is not advertisement for the subject company.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Having checked on the search engine, I could see a considerable number of secondary sources, although most of those sites aren't very mainstream. Borderline.--Kylohk 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added an additional source to the article, which I believe sufficiently asserts notability when combined with USA Today's article. However, I think the page could use a rewrite or the addition of content that doesn't focus directly on Limbo's products.
 * I'm not convinced that those sources meet the requirement for "Significant coverage" or "Reliable" sources (means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability). They do support that the company exists.  However one is a press release, not reliable or NPOV.  Vegaswikian 18:26, 14 July 2007 (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.