Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowcovered


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowcovered

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company; judging from the talk page, author considers this interesting and is creating this and other articles as a coatrack on which to hang his/her original research. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)  The article should not be deleted, because it is a) a description of a notable and prominent technology company; b) includes relevant academic citations and sources; and c) forms part of technology and entrepreneurship series of articles. The article is also not a 'coatrack' because it is neutral in tone, and can stand alone without further articles. Please reconsider the deletion. Audiohifi (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) — Audiohifi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * response -- That technology and entrepreneurship series of articles constitutes original research; Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Orange Mike - I understand what you mean. I am not however publishing original research on Wikipedia, but rather am adding to the existing content under a general theme. My goal for inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is to both add to the digital distribution channel category, as this is an example of an emerging technology trend, as well as to add to the body of knowledge on entrepreneurship by showing another example of engagement for developers from emerging economies in the global e-commerce environment. Thanks also for pushing me to get citations from outside the site, I went ahead and found more appropriate sources. Cheers, Audiohifi Audiohifi (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I have edited the "entrepreneurship" paragraph to remove content that was referenced with blog posts, after learning more about the citation policy. Orange Mike, how else can this article be improved to avoid deletion? Thanks, Audiohifi (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I thought it could be improved to avoid deletion, I would not have nominated it for an AfD in the first place. AfDs are not supposed to be a forced-improvement mechanism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. No non-trivial third-party reliable sources with which to build an article on this particular product/company. ~YellowFives 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements, as explained above. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:21, 12 November 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.