Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Armor Group


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Armor Group

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a company. In fact, hardly anything other than the company's page and facebook page exist. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There's no much proof that this company really exists, much less that it's notable. The website only has a blank home page.    Will Beback    talk    01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - reads like corporate advertising to me so there may also be conflict of interest and POV. Anotherclown (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability as a company or military unit. Seems odd that they would write an article on Wikipedia when thier website is blank.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait Triton Armor Group actually and surprisingly got their first contract in their first week of business. So, within a few days the website will catch up. Thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't change the fact that it appears to have been written to promote the company. If you can reword it to make it more neutral and can find reliable and independent sources to establish notablity then please do so (the company's website does not count as either IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, no article. I wonder where this inside information comes from--does anyone have a COI sticker laying around? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet notability standards due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Please delete it. No one deserves Drmies wrath on pure suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be afraid, Wolfgänger. I have no guns and no military training--unless Wolfenstein 3D counts. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I commend your sharp, clear spirit, Drmies. (And sense of humor). It inspires to bring out the best. (talk)
 * Delete Clearly not notable, I'm not even sure does it even exist. Their website is blank, and there isn't really any other reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The web site is in fact in existence and will be posted within days. This is an elite, private company.  It's principals are respected professionals.  All postings to the contrary are false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.76.135 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone doubts that they are respected professionals. That doesn't make them notable, though. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find an independent souce which actually calls them respected professionals, or calls them anything at all, I might change my mind from delete to keep. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources. Being a new startup should not bar an organisation from having a wikipedia article as long as notability can be established. I can't find any evidence of notability. I got no further than this: which makes for an interesting comparison with . Apart from that, some of the factual claims about the organisation seem a little suspicious considering that organisation appears to be so new and has just a placeholder website... bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  16:08, 26 October 2010 (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.