Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10ticks (2nd nomination)

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. Those wishing to keep have provided underwhelming, if any, rationales for why it should be kept. Keeper | 76 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10ticks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small local company, previously deleted as not notable. It's been userfied, cleaned up and moved back into main space but the notability concerns have not been addressed. It's still a small company that has received primarily local and narrow specialist coverage and won a very local award. At least two of the refs are dead links. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10ticks awards include, only one of which is local the rest are national(see below), they have just not been added. There are also links to books by 10ticks being sold in South Africa. Australia and Malaysia. The product is also used in 60% of UK secondary schools and around the world.
National Business Awards 2006 – Regional Highly Commended; Government DTi e-commerce award 2005 - Winner; North-west e-commerce award 2003, 2004, 2005 – Runner up; e-business of the Year 2004 - Winner; HP Business Vision UK 2004 - Runner Up; National Sage Business Awards ‘Best Growth in Technology’ 2003 - Runner up; Bolton and Bury Small business of the Year 2001 – Winner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 80.46.99.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. These 'awards' and almost-awards do not add up to encyclopedic significance, as the lack of general coverage also indicates. That this product is used in 60% of elementary schools around the world is hard to believe--I suppose this was infelicitous writing. I don't see any evidence of 60% usage in the UK either; what I do see is that the article tries to make as much as it can out of very little solid sourced content (like that "interview" with Ian Fisher--at 1438 characters it's even too short for DYK).
IP, I believe you have a registered account which you used to comment in the first AfD: please use it. Also, please clean up the layout; not sticking to convention with bullet points etc. makes this AfD unattractive and confusing. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.125.200 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep U81I82 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business apparently makes math course work for education. It's a subsidiary of Fisher Education, another non-notable business that we don't have an article for, so there's no redirect target. These minor trade awards simply do not have the kind of wide impact needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is notable. Significant coverage in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- a small company, but probably significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.