Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xeltek Inc.


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeltek Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Highly promotional of what does not appear to be a notable company, only one GNews hit and first page of GHits are self published or the like. Codf1977 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are only GNews articles allowed for notability? Earlier I had written in the article about certain breakthroughs the company had in the device programming community, in particular Stand-Along programming (which i was going to write another article about after i got this article passed), which had been deleted by another user because he said it was promotional. I had this article reviewed by other wikipedia editors, at least a handful of drafts, and everything seemed fine. A lot of the text I had put in, which I believed gave more depth about the company in hand, had been deleted saying it was promotional or advertisement (which I don't agree with). An ex: Xeltek provides programming solutions... Solutions was deleted for being a peacock term? but I wrote solutions because they deal with solutions for programming needs other than selling programmers such as providing socket adapters to program different types of chips. Junjoon (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesnt have to be from google news, but it does have to be a source independant from the topic of the article and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. see WP:RS. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The chief independent references seem to be to "Our Suppliers" pages, and to PRLog, apparently a host for press releases.  Nothing about the references suggests truly independent and substantial coverage; nothing about the article suggests that this business's products have any historical, technical or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, press releases are insufficient. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above, I also STRONGLY suggest that the articles creator read WP:COI, due to his "suggestion" on my talk page here to delete a an article about one of his competitors. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:13, 10 September 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.