Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ADERANT

I was asked by User:Dhaluza to give an accounting of my rationale for closing this afd as a delete result.

This AfD was rather decidedly a close, in my opinion; the best keep argument was voiced by Dhaluza at the very end of the debate, and so perhaps did not have much of a chance to draw as much influence as it merited.

I disallowed most of the keep arguments because the majority fell either into WP:ILIKEIT territory ("seems prominent enough to warrant an article") or cited the fact that the article was referenced, despite the fact that almost every reference was generated by the subject of the article. Those arguing keep never responded to the rather good point made by User:Rossami that the vast majority of Google News hits for the subject arose from press releases as well. I counted a 12:2 or perhaps a 12:3 consensus in favor of deletion.  A  Train ''talk 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call. As I keep telling people, consensus is never all about the numbers, the merits of the arguments need to be weighed up (which is precisely why we no longer cast the title as "votes").  Chris cheese whine 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not happy with the process--going from A7 to WP:N without a tag. I'm fairly confident that a little research in a Law or Business library would turn up additional sources. I may check if I get a chance. The original author has left WP as a result of this, and despite his checkered record, this is a bad trend I see too often. But I have not decided whether this should go to DRV yet.... Dhaluza 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)