Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upverter


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Upverter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject. Searching only shows press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Searching yielded some in-depth independent reviews of the Upverter product/website, but these were blogs or semi-journalistic sites, e.g., Hack a Day that probably don't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Nothing came up on Google Scholar that was related to this company or its product. Note that 'upverter' is a term already in use in electronics and typically refers to a low to high voltage power converter. When the company or product garners independent reviews or news articles from reliable sources, re-creating this article would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Although the company and product is interesting, I could only find a few press releases and three articles on ITbusiness.ca when searching HighBeam and NewsBank. Not really enough to establish notability. - MrX 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree with the nom that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability; the article was wholly written by what seems to be an editor with no other contributions to the project  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above comments, there is not enough to demonstrate notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2012 (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.