Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculated Industries

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. Chaser - T 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculated Industries

Calculated Industries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

When I proposed the article for deletion as possible promotional, the creator removed almost all the contents from it. Original version can be found here, and I honestly don't know what to do with the article; so I am listing it here for more discussion. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 because it makes no claim of notability or importance. Sancho 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Adequately referenced. --Eastmain 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Practically all of those references are reprints of company press releases. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; article makes no claim to WP:CORP notability, and the external links, largely devoted to glowing reports about niche products, are excessive. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hardly any reliable secondary sources, no notability shown. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think I have taken out everything that could be seen as an advertisement. (The news articles were put back in by somebody else...) I think the patent information is a good (unbiased) addition. The timeline seems like a good idea if I can find a more credible source for the information. The article will still be a bit short, but I'm sure people will pitch in and make it better. I am getting some pictures ready, too Clydefrog79 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At the current state, the article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The only source (cited under References section) links to its own website. Therefore there are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources. Links at the bottom under References look external links to me rather than sources. — Indon (reply) — 07:31, 9 May 2007 (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.