Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniGuide

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) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OmniGuide

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

NN company, doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. This is a private company, which means info is sparse anyway, but drilling down on the Highbeam search results claimed to meet notability shows that they are press releases, either required by law (changes in high-level personnel), financing notices, or ads. Adjusting for the first two [1] dropped 31 results of the original 179, and starts showing duplication in strange areas in the rest of the results, like a result in Entertainment Close-up, and the same item in Wireless News, which are clearly not RS for a medical device company, and on close review, are press release ads. Most of the results are in "weekly"-type websites that don't seem to be discerning in content. I'm not aware that usage of tools in primary studies meets notability for the manufacturer, as that seems WP:INHERITED . The company also spun out of MIT, which means the MIT source used is questionable as independent. Posting the AfD notice to the creator yielded several CSDs of this article in 2008 and a block of the user for creating the article. Delete and salt if speediable. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability demonstrated by non-WP:ROUTINE independent coverage: [2], [3], [4]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be expanded, but there are plenty of mainstream Reliable Sources to do it with: Bloomberg NPR CNN CNN --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will relist this again in the hope of additional input, there is clearly no consensus to delete right now but input has been minimal as a whole. KaisaL (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if not actually confident as I examined the news sources but was not convinced; I'll continue watching this article and we may need to revisit it later for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 13 July 2016 (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.