Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLI Systems

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. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SLI Systems

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

No reliable evidence for notability: refs are press releases or local promotion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google search found a number of independent reliable sources. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4] sovereign°sentinel 04:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence I did some cleanup of the weaker sources and more promotional aspects, so if the article is kept, it'll be fine. The sources provided by Sovereign Sentinel are "ok", but many are small blurbs from less significant publications. It has 170 employees, which is usually just about where companies start getting notable. CorporateM (Talk) 07:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete for now since the article could be a little more blossoming and my searches found nothing particularly convincing here, here, here and here. There are mostly press releases and news about the company growing so there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 16:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've worked to improve the article over the last week, and believe that the current references clearly indicate that it is notable in New Zealand at least. Snori (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to have enough coverage to reach GNG. Mattlore (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No easily discernible sense; AfD could do with a new look at allegedly newly added references. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article at present establishes notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This piece was particularly compelling in establishing the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; enough independent sources to satisfy GNG appear to exist. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (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.