Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDM Electronics, Inc. (2nd nomination)

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. Unanimous consensus to delete, other than a couple of socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDM Electronics, Inc.[edit]

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

Previous discussion was closed as speedy deleted per CSD G12 as virtually every sentence was a copyvio from a new source. I'd like to return the article to AfD to test the consensus of the community of on the merits of the article: all of the sourcing is either primary sourcing, trade magazines, or press releases, failing the test of WP:N that requires the sourcing to be independent. Additionally, it fails WP:N because it is currently written promotionally, thus being excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this article is similar to the previous one, and the points against it remains the same. The coverage of the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consists of trivial mentions or "About CDM" citations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted I spoke with the Wikipedia community about this article before, and I have discovered what seemed to be promotional and have removed all promotional content. In addition, I have provided three additional independent sources to provide a backbone to this article while removing the source that mentions "About CDM" in the citation. I firmly believe that this article should not be deleted, considering there is plenty of opportunity for this page to grow in the Wikipedia community. I would also like the opportunity to further research the company CDM Electronics, Inc. and improve the content on this article even more. — Wholeteam39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:53, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- strictly advertorial with sections such as "Authorized distribution lines" and "Current work". Distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark with its WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the issues listed above and firmly believe that the article CDM Electronics, Inc. is completely informational rather than an advertorial article. In addition, the article is backed by several secondary sources. The article now meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards.--Wholeteam39 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The editors of CDM Electronics, Inc. seem to have resolved all of the issues listed above, and the page therefore meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards. I have also noticed that this page already contains categories, and is not an orphan. CDM Electronics, Inc. seems to be a legitimate company.--Anthonyjvezza (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

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.