Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALINE Systems (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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALINE Systems

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

Article does not seem to be written from a neutral, disengaged POV (point of view), and the only online reference appears to relate to the company website Applet (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another article for consideration, also seems biased but from an additional source at least.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/business/x1678045419/Marblehead-Chamber-welcomes-new-member-ALINE-Systems-Inc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvord13 (talk • contribs) — Alvord13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NPOV is not an argument for delete as it can be fixed through normal editing. However, the article makes no assertion of notability and should therefore be deleted; even a well sourced topic is non-notable where it makes no argument for being other than run-of-the-mill. See WP:MILL and WP:EXIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately MILL is not guideline. It appears that this product has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. It would be nice for the article to be despamificated, but no reason for deletion. ^Bongo_matic 05:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment replying to Bongomatic - WP:MILL is not policy, but given that WP:N would, read strictly, allow a separate page for every suburban restaurant able to source a Yellow Pages and a couple of local restaurant reviews, clearly there is a higher standard for notability than merely the existence of reliable, independent sources. That standard must be that the sources themselves attest to the notability of the subject - which is not the case here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. I cannot evaluate the sources cited in the article, and they appear in text rather than links; but their titles, at least, suggest that they support the proposition that this consumer business has received an adequate level of coverage in independent, third party media of specific-interest but voluntary readership (sports magazines). That would appear to meet the business notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (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.