Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyesol (2nd nomination)
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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Dyesol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company which fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There's significant coverage in The Age, but not in any other independent reliable sources.Claritas § 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems like it has pretty significant coverage to me [1]. Artw (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I actually found quite a bit of non-trivial coverage from just a google search of dyesol -wikipedia as well as a google news search. SnottyWong gossip 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, you instantly see coverage appearing in plenty. Just read the titles and the summaries of the ones up top, and that should be convincing enough. Dream Focus 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like plenty of reliable sources exist. The article has been flagged for rescue, so hopefully it will be improved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - quite clearly notable, I probably was a a little too eager to nominate there... Claritas § 14:04, 27 June 2010 (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.