Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNY 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   keep. consensus is to keep, plus nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

PNY Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem notable, badly sourced, written like an advertisement Tractor Tyres (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. PNY not notable?  I don't know how to even respond to that.  They've been a major player in the market since the 1980s.  They may not be a household name like Apple and IBM, but it astounds me that someone would call them non-notable.  If it's truly necessary, then I'll dig up a dozen references, but it seems like a waste of time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete unless we can find sources that establishes notability. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources have been added to support this passing WP:ORG. Ping me if this changes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't believe I'm being forced to do this, but... OK, fine.  Here: New York Times, New York Daily News, NorthJersey.com, Maximum PC, CNET, CNET, etc.  Do I really have to sit here for an hour and copy every result from Google? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - now passes WP:GNG and WP:BURDEN which requires actual inline cites in order to prevent deletion. Delete - Has no RS refs showing notability. Will change to keep if the article reaches WP:GNG. As I have been forced to do numerous times, saving an article like this means doing the required work. Personally, I think this shows a major flaw with AfDs. That is, this company is obviously notable but instead of being fixed with a little work, its article was AfDed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No... a topic only needs to be notable.  The status of the article is immaterial.  Regardless, I have fixed the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the article also needs to pass WP:BURDEN. Thanks for fixing the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Major manufacturer and seller of flash drives, flash memory and RAM. Nominator's attempt to nom United Flight 93 strikes me as someone who's WP:NOTHERE and who didn't do any WP:BEFORE on PNY whatsoever.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples:, , , , , . Please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than whether or not they're present in Wikipedia articles. However, User:NinjaRobotPirate has graciously donated their time to add sources to the article despite this. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good that it is being fixed. My concern is that if the refs were not actually added now, then we would be faced with another AfD later. In any case, the article could still have been validly deleted per WP:BURDEN which does require actual inline cites in order to be kept. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no requirement of inline refs for the article to be kept. AfD is not a substitute for tagging the article with inline Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:V is fairly clear ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.") that anything lacking cited sources can be deleted although it is proper practice to allow time for cites to be added. It would have been completely improper to allow the AfD to fail if the article continued to fail WP:V given that the article's contents had been challenged per WP:V for an extended period of time prior to the AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: The subject is now proven to be notable and doesn't rely only on primary sources. Tractor Tyres (talk) 16:33, 7 January 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.