Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomgripz

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 delete. Notability not established via reliable sources. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atomgripz[edit]

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

Relatively new company, much of the material is written like an advert. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. bd2412 T 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the 'sources' are either forums (which fail to meet the self-published sources guideline, or places to purchase the product in question. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is well known in the hand gripper community and is over two years old. - Gripmaniac 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— Gripmaniac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Perhpas, but none of this supports Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail self-published sources, a source is a source is a source:)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source is a source, but none of the sources listed have established any notability. The sources are all either forums, blogs, or places to purchase the product in question. The article has no notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – NN company lacking reliable sources. An Advertisement at best, lacks any assertion of notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its a well known company ttonyb1.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just saying something is so, does not make it true. Regardless, being well known is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. If you are so sure the company should be included, provide adequate, secondary reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also speedy delete doesnt apply to this Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, just saying something is so, does not make it true. Rather than make unsupported statements, I suggest you provide support for your vague comments. ttonyb (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references provided are reliable, and I can't find any that pass muster myself -- not that the article presents any credible claim of notability to suggest any good sources exist. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2011 (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.