Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Image (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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Liquid Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cited sources are either unrelated or unreliable, it seemed to me also as a promotion so I speedyied the article, but it was declined. It's also an orphan so it's very likely not notable. Alex discussion ★ 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- keep. Nothing promotional here: the company is defunct. An interesting and reasonably referenced piece of history. - Altenmann >t 19:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I wrote the article and it's meant to do exactly what wikipedia is designed for: record history. It's not promotional as the company has been dead for almost 15 years. It's reference material for researchers as just like everybody remembers Orville and Wilbur Wright as inventors of the aircraft they don't realize there were lots of people working on it (including D'Avinci who was way ahead of his time). Liquid Image was an early developer 15 years ago of device and technology that are finally coming to market now: Google Glass and all the other augmented reality toys. The reference material is valuable and aligns with why Wikipedia was formed in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.114.94 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The article makes a valid claim to notability and the newspaper article at this link (which make take a while to load) is an adequate reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 9 December 2013 (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.