Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TronixCountry

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 delete. Consensus is this lacks notability TravellingCari 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TronixCountry

Contested speedy. Non-notable company, ~~no references that aren't from the company itself~~, couldn't find any additional ones either. Grsz ^talk 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No references that establish notability. Grsz ^talk 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"no references that aren't from the company itself" Blatantly false. BBB, GSB, and ConsumerAffairs.com links are in the article - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/09/computer_credit.html, http://www.webcitation.org/5ZDDlLdjL, ...) Notable. Article achieves NPOV despite the divisive topic.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertises on TV (like BlueHippo): http://ostria.whatsblog.net/The-first-blog-b1/Blue-Hippo-and-TronixCountry-b1-p13628.htm, http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=644157&st=0--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company, no encyclopedic value. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GoogleNewsTronixCountryConsumerReports.comHitsDisputeUserParanormalSkepticClaimOfNonexistence.png 01:51, 2 October 2008 by IReceivedDeathThreats

I've reformatted your contribution so it no longer displayed as an image -- anyone who wants to look at it can go to the URL above. In any case, I don't know what, exactly, you are trying to show by posting it. The Google search hit merely shows that the company exists, which I don't believe anyone is disputing, but has nothing to do with whether it is notable, and whether it serves an encyclopedic purpose to have an article about it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's still an A7 speedy, if you ask me. I don't see any assertion of notability or explanation of the importance of the company in the article. Advertising on TV is not any sort of distinction; so does the local coffee shop. I see no evidence that this is a notable company. --MCB (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as lacking notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are simply advertisements and business listings of the sort that all businesses, notable and non-notable, use. I'm not familiar with consumeraffairs.com, but the article on that source appears from its style to be a PR piece of some kind, too, and that's the only source that could even claim to meet WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional From Consumer Affairs FAQ, it appears to be a site that publishes user-submitted articles, which would not meet WP:RS, and which makes me more convinced that the article on that site is company PR. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It's very unlikely to be company PR, as the article, as a whole, is quite negative on the company's business model. However, I agree that the site doesn't look sufficiently reliable.--Kubigula (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls under CSD A7, as far as I can see.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:37, 2 October 2008 (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.