Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plurality (company)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Plurality (company)

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

I originally speedied this per CSD:A7 but the user has requested I restore it. The source is provided and I think it's enough to get over the hurdle of A7 speedy deletion. Still recommend delete for failing to meet WP:CORP, but in the slow fashion rather than speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure why you couldn't go ahead with the speedy regardless of what you were shown in the background. The pertinent issue for the speedy deletion is that the article doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the company. It still doesn't. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notability requires reliable sources, which, to me, is exclusive to sources with a wikipedia page.  Ergo, A7 is still on the table. Mystache (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't even think of casting judgement on this until someone skilled in the arts tells me if the "HAL" is a notable piece of multi-processor architecture. If these guys have dibs on an interesting piece of technology, they're notable straightaway. If they're just someone's employer, then they have to grind through WP:CORP line-by-line like the rest of the schmucks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not a speedy. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think there is enough reliable sources in the page. Please remove the deletion flag. Gnumer (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion notice will remain for five days while the article is discussed here. After that period an uninvolved administrator will judge the consensus here and determine whether the article will be kept or not. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 01:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep The EEtimes article here puts it over the bar.  I still suspect vaporware given I can't find anything that makes me believe otherwise (and I am skilled in the art).  But keep as it meets WP:N.... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit and sources added. --  Banj e  b oi    15:50, 29 September 2008 (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.