Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motion Pro, Inc.


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion Pro, Inc.

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

Blatant advertising. Not notable. See also Notability (organizations and companies). I'd nominate for speedy deletion but it's been gathering dust for 16 months without doing any harm so might as well give it a week to see if anyone loves the article. Dbratland (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Motion Pro is a large enough company that notable sources can be fairly easily found. It certainly needs cleanup and love, though. tedder (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that (although you need to filter out Liquid Motion Pro and Stop Motion Pro software). But I couldn't find any straight news stories about Motion Pro -- only short blurbs in "new & cool product roundup" columns.  Were you able to find any stories like this for Aerostich:   or book mentions like ?  To me Motion Pro, while large, is generic and unremarkable, and neither the business press nor the moto press finds them interesting enough to say much about.--Dbratland (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This is obvious advertising: Motion Pro produces a line of specialty tools that are designed to facilitate difficult and time-consuming jobs. The company also offers a variety of lightweight tools for use on the trail and on the road.  If it's obvious advertising, notability is not an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment having advert content is a surmountable problem. However, I haven't been able to find any "deep" coverage of the company itself to base an article on. tedder (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Delete as there aren't any verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, just spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (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.