Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveBatch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Arguably no comments after two relists = no consensus but no policy based arguments to keep have been presented and only being able to source to press releases is a reason to delete so I'm going to go with the limited consensus on the basis that given time no better sourcing has emerged Spartaz Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ActiveBatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article lacks reliable sources that are wholly independent of the subject (e.g. press releases do not count as sources). Thus, it appears to not meet the notability requirements for a company. Steven Walling • talk 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete I offered the Press Releases as sources to support the product timeline. What should I do to strengthen the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrown05 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read the general notability guidelines. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Nbrown05: find reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (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.