Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mach Speed Technologies


 * 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 Deleted by Nyttend, see comment at bottom. Simply closing discussion. StarM 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mach Speed Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Defunct electronics maker. Did it ever meet WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The company was alive from 1989 until 2010, and was a popular company. It was absorbed into the new parent, and looking at other articles such as Hudson Soft absorbed companies seem to be allowed. I believe it meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. AustralianPope (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article currently has no third party sources, and I couldn't find any significant third party coverage in reliable sources. I'm open to changing if someone can prove me wrong, but in its current state, I don't understand how it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Sergecross73   msg me   14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you even looking for third party sources? Because I clearly see 2 and only one first party source. The article is similar to another perfectly find article Coby Electronics. (Not to mention the above user should really have no opinion here due to conflict of interest)AustralianPope (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate. The first source is the companies website. 1st party. The second is the website of the company that bought them. That would be first party as well. The third is nothing but a brief database entry. All usuable sources for the article, but not for establishing notability. Also, I have no connection to this company, so there is no relevant WP:COI. This is, however, why I advised you to start slow on Wikipedia. You don't have a good grasp on policy or article writing yet. Sergecross73   msg me   16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You've never told me to start slow what are you talking about? By conflict of interest, I am not talking about the company this article is about I am talking about something completely different. Also, it still makes no sense to delete the page, t's referenced with reliable sources, some pages are made with NO sources, and has one third-party source. I don't even get 10 minutes to see if I can find another one before it getting nominated for deletion? AustralianPope (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I added another third party source for review for a user who is not going around saying a new users first pages are bad intentionally, and a being conflict of interest. AustralianPope (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted under speedy criterion G5, block-enforcement. This criterion shouldn't be used on decent articles about notable topics, since deletion hurts the encyclopedia, but it's appropriate for ambiguous content like this article.  Sorry for deleting the AFD by accident; I clicked the wrong button.  Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2014 (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.