Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Highfive Technologies, Inc.

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Highfive Technologies


Rejected 5 times in a row by several different experienced editors. The firm does not appear to be notable enough that here is any potential for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Why, there are 8 listed references, most of which are from several different reliable sources. The ones I checked (The Verge, TechCrunch, Inc.) cover the subject in detail, which convinces me of notability. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply nothing is solidly convincing of keeping, improving and accepting, somewhat newly founded with no better signs. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister   talk  22:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The $799 device unveiled Tuesday by Highfive, a San Francisco start-up"... Lots of references, but all are non-critical promotion.  No chance of passing WP:CORP.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like exactly "non-critical promotion". It just explains what Highfive is doing and there's not much more information for the media to go off of. But there still is, evidently, at least somewhat significant media coverage which means it has a chance of passing. I think offline research, for example, could reveal some more sources. Appable (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep given that it has references from reliable sources that cover the topic in a reasonable amount of depth. I think it could be notable enough for an article; having significant coverage in at least The Verge and WIRED is significant for sure to indicate further research (potentially offline sources like print magazines in that industry) would be enough to promote to mainspace.


 * Worth noting as well that over each review, it seems like the article has improved a bit from fairly promotional to a relatively neutral and at least somewhat sourced article with some reliable sources, so keeping it and allowing the main author or others more time to research and improve is the best course of action in my opinion. It's been rejected a lot, but not without some improvement each time, which indicates a more promising draft. Appable (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thought — it honestly doesn't seem that far away from meeting WP:GNG since it certainly does have multiple independent reliable sources covering the company. Not all the sources cover it as the main subject but it seems to be very close to establishing notability due to number of sources (and not in WP:NOT). I'm sort of interested in hearing why this isn't considered notable already under the general notability guideline. Am I missing something? It's not trivial coverage, many of the sources are independent, and LA Times, Verge, etc are clearly reliable secondary sources. Appable (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.