Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDanywhere

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. Michig (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HDanywhere

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

Non-notable company. Kvng's argument to deprod the article was essentially WP:DINC. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have cut WP:PROMOTIONAL material from the article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMOTIONAL status remains. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I'm not wholesale opposed to WP:TNT but I WP:DEPRODded because don't think flawed articles on notable subjects should be deleted through WP:PROD. 81.174.164.147 PRODded because, "Article is an advert for the company, it was marked in may 2015 as an advert and no changes have been made to improve this in a year." GeoffreyT2000 is now proposing deletion on WP:N grounds. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [1], [2], [3]. Additional sources are not difficult to find: [4], [5], [6]. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing else convincingly better aside from a few other links. Draft if needed, SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have considered speedy A7--there isn othing in the article to even indicate significance. The firm appears to be a routine video installer. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs more than a handful of product reviews. The products are not notable on their own, and even if one or two were, the company isn't necessarily notable for that reason alone. -- RM 22:30, 20 April 2016 (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.