Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkfruit

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inkfruit

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

Non-notable, orphaned and apparently never reviewed Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as can be seen from the references section, and thus passes WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about significant coverage. Really only one of the references (the Economic Times review) is more than a short mention of the company. Is that enough to establish notability? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my mind a bit here. I don't think the references in the article constitute significant coverage to establish notability, but Inkfruit's pressroom has links to quite a few other sources, newspaper/periodical articles from what I can tell, that should be enough to establish notability. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 17 June 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) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing Inkfruit's pressroom, there were a few advertisement type materials, but managed to find at least 5 (stopped looking at that point) sources that meet WP:GNG. Akerans (talk) 14:39, 24 June 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.