Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walters-Storyk Design Group

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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walters-Storyk Design Group

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

Issues here are not clear cut, so I'm bringing this to the collective wisdom of AfD. I came across this while working at WP:DEP, and the version I saw[1] smelled of copyvio. Turned out to be from the company website, posted by a company employee. I reverted the addition, but previous versions aren't a whole lot better. In researching to see if I could get a non-spammy article out of it, I'm getting a lot of press releases, but little else except passing mentions. The one thing that gives me pause is this article. Is it enough for notability? I lean towards no, but I could be convinced otherwise. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to your article from Billboard magazine, I was able to confirm the winning of four TEC awards, which I gather is the top award in the sound engineering industry, and I added the references to the article. I also cleaned it up a little, made it more coherent and deleted some puffery. I think the company makes it as notable. They have offices in five countries, and the repeated industry awards are significant. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per MelanieN, but I think the "services offered" sections should go if there are no sources for it. I'll followup on MelanieN's efforts later. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (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.