Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extech Instruments
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 WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extech Instruments[edit]
- Extech Instruments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article was first written in 2006 and although challenged over COI issues and prodded at least once, it is still unsourced, unverified and probably not notable. JodyB talk 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added two references from newspapers in Massachusetts. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. Article now meets WP:N and WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards delete - The article looks legitimate now, it has several references. But if it is to stay, it needs much more info to verify that it is a real, established company. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It has been verified that this is a real, established company. The issue is whether it is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability now established the usual way. I see no reason to give it special consideration. WilyD 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't feel inclined at the moment to wade through all of the 819 Google News hits and 83 at Google Books but I think that it's highly unlikely that any subject could get so many such hits and not turn out to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 6 November 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.