Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcend


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Transcend

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

Delete: Article reads like an ad Lthompson1 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Wikify The corporation appears notable, the problem is with WP:NPOV issues. I think it could potentially be wikified.  R mosler  | ●   04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator's argument is not really valid as it is merely a WP:UGLY variation- a biased article can be rewritten as pointed out by Rmosler. Now, there is some evidence in the article of independent notability (although most of the references lead to the company's own website). It was mentioned in this article: which alone does not satisfy criteria for notability. It is a little difficult searching for it on Google due to the very general nature of its name, but I have found several mentions of it (many of them more than just trivial) in the Google News archives:, , ,  etc. At any rate, it appears to be a relatively major player in its industry. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep : I did a lot for the article and don't want to see it get deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While I do agree with you that the article should not be deleted, your argument is not valid. See this page for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikify I came to this page expecting a definition of the concept of transcendance (or redirect to) and various religous/philosophical guff (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion) ). I'm not anti-capitalist or anything but I do have a problem with a company hijacking a page on wikipedia which really just references a common english word. The company should be listed as a 'Can refer to'/'See also' not the core page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.40.10 (talk) 20:18, 8 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.