Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GD3 Data

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The result was withdrawn and speedy deleted G11. Considering the sockpuppet activity on this AFD and a re-reading of the original article, this easily fits the requirement of blatant advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GD3 Data

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

Declined A7, but still fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I've added quite a few external references to show notability of the business. I think there are currently 3 independent references. Here's a fourth CEPro Article on metadata. I'm not exactly sure what you really are looking for. The business was known as "Get Digital Data" for nearly 4 years, so many of the Google notability searches may be under that name. Also, "GD3 database" "GD3 Metadata". It's kind of scattered around and a big reason why we change our name to GD3 Data so that these can be consolidated. How many independent references do you need to be considered "notable"? Thanks for your assistance. Dougstrach (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Dougstrach — Dougstrach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please Keep — As a consultant in the consumer electronics industry I have found that GetDigital's GD3 Data entry on Wikipedia serves many useful purposes:

Helps International companies identify the various technologies and intellectual property offered
Explains the company's name changes
Serves as an important historical record which will aid future historians track an important transitional period from physical to digital in the music/movie industry.

I urge you to retain this entry.

Stevekukla (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Stretchy54 — Stevekukla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So essentially, you believe that this is article is supposed to be an advertising vehicle. If that's the case, I can speedy delete the whole thing right now as blatant advertising and be done with it. Was that your intention? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — One reference to their own website, two product announcements, and one product review on a self–published site do not constitute demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Non–notable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems that TransporterMan is the only one with a problem with the GD3 page (likely a competitor who just doesn't want information about our company available). CEPro is the most reliable Consumer Electronics publication in the professional space and is recognized as an industry standard for Consumer Electonics--hardly a "self-published" site. Get Digital has also been reviewed by Scott Alexander and published in Playboy Magazine, as well as Fortune (Peter Lewis) IBJ Article on Get Digital, Men's Health and USA Today. If you'd like print versions of these articles, please let me have your fax number and I can forward. They aren't available online, and I cannot republish for obvious copyright reasons. I also do not believe that references to companies who license GD3--just like CDDB references all their customers on a page is a product announcement. These are encyclopedic references. 66.61.160.210 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Dougstrach[reply]

Comment struck for sockpuppetry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (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.