Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TouchWave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TouchWave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable company, the flagship product fails to produce any significant google hits. The only thing this company has seemed to have achieved was to be purchased by Ericsson which is not notable in itself ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect – Wouldn’t it make more sense to merge/redirect to Ericsson, as there is enough media coverage to verify this as shown here, [1] than delete? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to keep this title red, it's best to move the page first (to target article talk space for example), so the history of any merged material can be retained. - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL- what ever works best. But deletion should not be an option. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mgm--"than" ≠ "then." ;) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL- what ever works best. But deletion should not be an option. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to keep this title red, it's best to move the page first (to target article talk space for example), so the history of any merged material can be retained. - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- a
nd thus these should not have been brought here. it would be excusable for the first few of these not to have realised it, but it is not any longer. I am too involved to act as an administrator, but I know what I would do if i saw something like this being done in another subject: I would close al related afds, and tell the participants to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk or project pages for as long as it took to reach consensus or compromise, or get to a resolution of the dispute. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Are you sure that comment was meant for this AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- right. too many tabs open at a time. ;) DGG (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that comment was meant for this AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- a
- Keep. Here's a review of their product in InfoWorld that predates the Ericsson takeover, and being purchased by Ericsson is notable if the purchase gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that for companies with an individual existence and notability, but that later get purchased by or merged into another company, we should keep the articles under the original name rather than try to combine them; Only in cases where there is a succession of names without major change in the organization, then a merge and redirect from the earlier names to the present one is appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I expanded the article to where it seems to meet Wikipedia article criteria. -- Suntag ☼ 18:27, 16 December 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.