Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scour


 * 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. John254 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scour

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

Previously deleted per WP:CSD; discussion at Deletion review/Log/2008 August 15 indicated some discomfort with that decision, with solid arguments on both sides. A full debate, I think, is in order. The current article does not demonstrate sufficient notability through reference to reliable sources. This is a procedural nomination, but my own instinct is to delete. Chick Bowen 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added quite a few reliable third-party sources. Article doesn't seem particularly spammy to me. Gr1st (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article asserts notability, company is notable (notable enough to get sued by MPAA, RIAA and NMPA), and article isn't an advert. Whether the new version of the company is notable in its own right is a different question, but the history of the company should be sufficient, notability doesn't have to be constant. Ged UK (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article now looks fine. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 25 August 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.