Greetings all! I've briefly talked to User:X! about the closure of this discussion (like a boss), in which we both agreed that bringing it to deletion review might be appropriate. To me personally, it seemed that, based on the discussion, a 'no consensus' closure may have been slightly more fitting. We also both agreed, however, that the community at deletion review would be a better interpreter of that than either of us (or at least than of me). Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Endorse. I would have !voted delete myself, without any question; hopefully that doesn't colour my assessment of this closure. Right from the outset of the discussion, the reliability of the sources cited by the article was called into question, as was the significance of the coverage. RadioFan and Gavin Collins had strong arguments here grounded firmly in policy. In response to that, there were four keeps:
- The first (relying on the business directory) was refuted.
- The second (from User:Daniel Christensen), with respect, was not grounded in policy.
- The third (from DGG (which the fourth relied on)) was explicitly "weak" and was in my view effectively refuted by Gavin Collins pointing to the policy that precludes business directories establishing the notability of an organisation (in addition to RadioFan's earlier reasons).
- At the end of the discussion, I can't find any sound reason to keep: the sources cited had been debunked as insufficient to establish notability, so the close was appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse. I'm not going to claim that it could not be closed any other way, but I think a delete close is the better choice here. Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse per Tim Song. I am not seeing an abuse of discretion here. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse proper close due to identified lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus and shame on endorse voters above. The AfD actually should have been a Keep, considering the number of votes, but due to not very strong arguments by keep voters I would see it a decent thing to do to say no consensus, but not delete. Notice I said "not so strong" for keep voters, and not irrelevant; keep votes did explain, especially DGG. Obvious abuse of discretion. We must always keep in mind that, if there are 10 keep votes that are weakly argued and one very well argued delete; decision MUST be keep, because it reflects community wishes. This is the basic principle of WP. Turqoise127 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC First of all there are plenty (100+) news hits. Some are PR releases, some are directory bits. But assuming this is the right company [1] is fairly detailed, [2] is in-passing but ABC news seems to think you should know who they are, [3] has a review of their offerings, and there are plenty more. Secondly, there was no consensus to delete. I understand facts are facts, but you need consensus to delete, and it was clearly lacking. WP:IAR exist for a reason and guidelines are just that. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hobit, those sources you linked are not very good. The My Central Jersey article is a profile of a local installation business, not a manufacturer. Single products in review lists are also weak. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse – my evaluation is no consensus leaning delete, and this close is within admin discretion. Mkativerata's evaluation is compelling. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)