Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulsion 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) —HueSatLum 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulsion 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)
Not notable. No assertion of notability. Refs are at best tangential and do not establish any notability. Verges on advertising Velella Velella Talk 09:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The issue is not whether the references establish notability, but whether notability can be established (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and editors are expected to search for sources before nominating an article for deletion (WP:BEFORE). A Google News archive search appears to show several articles in the Glasgow Herald about the company, which look like they should be enough to establish notability; alas, they're paywalled so I can't read them. Dricherby (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - Per the availability of sources, not just those currently in the article. (Also, sources are not required to be available online):
- This appears to be significant coverage: Finger on the Pulsion; John McGuire is a man in his element. Darran Gardner talks to the e-commerce revolutionary whose firm Pulsion Technology is behind the ultimate net accessory (subscription required)
- More sources:
- Keep—and improve. I tweaked some of the language for neutrality, and it looks like there are enough sources available to improve the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on what's in the article: there is plenty to show notability, but even more so which what is available, per Northamerica1000 and Mark Arsten. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2012 (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.