Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digifold

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 with an eye toward improving the tone to a more WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digifold

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

Non notable product. Article created by editor with a WP:COI - initial version claimed he had invented it. noq (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: Digifold is a new generation of 4 and 6 corner folding device for box gluers and associated machinery...it used advanced materials to improve speed and reduce cost... When you're a Pepsi Generation dropout like me, describing such a tool as new generation seems rather breathlessly promotional to the point of bemusement. Google News is all routine trade coverage of who's purchased this line of products, with nothing to indicate general awareness outside the box printing business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is Morgana's DigiFold, a device used in the production of books, then there a good number of independent sources about it [1]. It also has a fairly good claim to notability " the world's first integrated creaser/folder" [2]. The wiki article is a bit unclear whether it's about that or something else. Pcap ping 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Google responses. Article clearly needs improvement, but editors should be given the opportunity to do so. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider revising the article to be about the company--whjch would make a stronger & more informative article. From the description, this is the machine used in book production also or a variant of it. It apparently has a major share in an infdustry, and that is sufficient, even were it not innovative. The sources are perfectly good reliable trade magazines--the good ones are accepted in each industry as the major sources. They is the primary way people communicate about commercial products, and reliability goes according to what is accepted in the subject. TheWholeSubjectDoesNotSeemImportantToMe is not a good argument. And finally, notability is within a field. For a machine, notability within its industry is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for a product of no demonstrable (via reliable, third party sources etc...) notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Pcap ping 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything to confirm that it is the same product as the Morgana one? The description of its use seems at variance. noq (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it isn't, the Morgana one should have an article. I basically rewrote it that way from the sources I found. It looks like the product was acquired from another company by Morgana, see Talk:Digifold. Pcap ping 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its mentioned in the news enough to be something worth talking about. Google news search results = notable enough to have an article about it. Dream Focus 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and likely re-focus per DGG. -- Banjeboi 06:52, 25 January 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.