Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied Technology

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) — Yash ^[talk] 04:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All sources on the article currently are weak. Either not independent or not WP:RS. Web search turned up nothing for referencing this article. Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep I consider reference 3 from the theage.com.au an independent reliable source and is reasonably in-depth about the company and its products' impact on the Australian market. But unfortunately it is the only independent RS I have seen for this company. Unless more sources can be found, the article slips below the WP:GNG threshold and unfortunately should be deleted. Update: Thanks to a good find by The-Pope, we have a second independent RS that goes into enough depth to for the article to pass notability guidelines Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why are people surprised that there aren't strong online sources for a company (with multiple names) that operated before the internet existed? There is a dedicated story on them from Your Computer magazine (now clearly listed as Ref 5), so coupled with the more recent Age article, that's enough for me. The-Pope (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep refs make GNG. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep There are some fairly notable publications that cover them Reuters report, Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury, etc. Mkdw^talk 17:24, 7 January 2013 (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.