Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daat Research Corp

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 concensus. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daat Research Corp

The article doesn't seem like it is notable in any way that would justify inclusion. It seems notable enough to not demand a speedy deletion, but I think it still should be deleted. Captain panda 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, there may be a possible COI as the article was created by a user named DaatResearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Captain panda 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just rough draft for now. We should complete the article over the next few days with pictures, demos and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaatResearch (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Was AfDed two minutes after article creation; it should have some time to be developed. A note to User:DaatResearch- there are no sources there as yet; make sure what you include passes WP:N and WP:RS JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A note- I'd support deleting if it turns into WP:SPAM, but give the creator the chance to demonstrate that it's notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Others may fear of calling WP:SPAM early, but I fear not... lack of potential reliable sources in cursory search COI == hogging. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Two minutes!?! Jeez. give an article a chance. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give the article a chance and if it's spam, then we delete. (snickers) BoL (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cursory search yields plenty of results, contrary to Blaxthos' statement. Plenty of material about their work. Nominator may want to review deletion guidelines (specifically, if something can be improved by editing, it isn't a good deletion candidate, etc) and look into places such as WICU and ARS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per celarnor's sources, looks notable to me. I have informed the page's author about COI nonetheless, but will assume good faith on their part given that the company is indeed notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NASA Spinoff article is a press release, as are most or all oft he other sources cited. DGG (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed any of the material I put forward. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What research into this subject's notability could the nom possibly have done in ninety seconds? Ravenswing 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are provided in the links(Plenty of material about their work) above. Two of the posts above did not assume good faith and a case of don't bite the newbies occurred. SunCreator (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no depth to the information about this company available on the web, dozens of business listings have their basic information (date founded, president, contact info, ect.) but with quite a bit of research I was only to enlarge the article a small amount, which suggested a lack of notability. Based on the research I did I would say that right now there is not enough information to push this article to anything larger than stub status. The original article was pretty large but contained a lot bunch of information about CFD that was not particularly relevant to the company itself and would be better just linked too; I am in the process of removing that now. -Icewedge (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is not 'just the web'. Some links above are to a publication in print, and stubs are of course fine, over 50% of articles are currently stubs. SunCreator (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that it should be deleted as a stub, rather that, if information on a subject is so hard to find then it is not notable, if it was there would be information on it. As for the "publication in print"; are you talking about the links presented by celarnor? All of those mentions are extremely breif, I would also classify them as trival because all the articles cited talk about the company products, not the company. -Icewedge (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the print sources that have been presented. If those aren't enough, there were about 60 other ones that could be listed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:44, 12 April 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.