Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SightSound
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 keep. Sufficient coverage has been found to establish notability Davewild (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SightSound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borderline CSD for advertising. References are self published, including the refs that are supposed to be from major publications. All are from their own site. Tone is completely promotional and would require a complete rewrite even if they were notable. A speedy wouldn't break my heart, but because they have listed so many alleged citations, it might have gotten kicked out. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Purely promotional article for an intellectual property company focused on licensing its portfolio of domestic and international patents. The press release based stories actually make the business look like a patent troll[1][2], which argues against this business having significant effects on history, techology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This is advertising and would require a fundamental rewrite to ensure NPOV. Furthermore, as most of the references are rehosted on the company's own site, they really aren't reliable without the original article. I can't even find the original WSJ article. There has been some coverage, mostly by CNET, but it's mostly trivial. §everal⇒|Times 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to a Weak Keep on the basis of sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 17:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us examples of these references? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Withdrawn - I would withdraw the nomination due to the exceptional work done by §everal in properly referencing and cleaning the spam out of this article. The NPOV issues are removed, and it looks much better. Still some cleaning up but it is more than sufficiently demonstrated to be notable now. As he stated, this wasn't an easy one to source (not lots of coverage on patent trolls) but he took the time and did it right. I'm guessing the closing admin would want to keep it open since there is one delete !votes outstanding, but it would be fine with me to close it up as keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't touched the article - the cleanup seems to be the original page creator's doing. §everal⇒|Times 20:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to a Weak Keep on the basis of sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 17:57, 28 October 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.