- 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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyber-Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Speedy denied, prod removed. This article reads like an advertisment for a web designer which has quite a small portfolio. The awards mentioned seem to have many winners and Cyber-duck's awards are not at the highest level being bronze in one award and commended in the other. The Borehamwoods and Elstree times does not strike me as particularly notable Porturology (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I declined the speedy because importance was asserted, but I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough on this company to justify an article. Would appear to fail WP:CORP, because I don't think that a single article in a local newspaper meets our criteria for multiple reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
KeepStrong Keep, this article has references that validate its existence, but just because they are not cited properly, this article shouldn't be deleted. If Mighty Taco can have an article referencing only its own self, why can't Cyber-Duck which has proper references attached to it - now that's one question that's bothering me! :D Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep, I saw the Borehamwood & Elstree Times article on the company and the online version doesn't do it much justice.this is a genuine article about a company that made its way through the credit crunch and our uni teacher also shared this with us. I have fixed the reference problem and have fixed the links on the article. Nowhere on the article does it link to the company itself. If the original author doesn't revert the changes on the article to display a disputed POV or advertise, this should be considered a genuine article. SholeemGriffin (talk) 09:55, 20 April 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.