Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Win Development (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 keep. Noting also that the article is very different to the one deleted four years ago. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Win Development[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

In Win

In Win Development, run-of-the-mill computer case and computer power supply company. This draft reads like an advertisement, and does not refer to any significant coverage by third parties. I put Notability and Tone tags on the article, which were reverted with the edit summary: "Where is the advertising? Point out the problems on the talk page instead of drive-by tagging". I haven't asked the author about COI. I haven't read the 2018 article, but this article doesn't appear to focus on anything since 2018, so that the 2018 AFD should be presumptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Taiwan. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. There is massive significant third-party coverage about the company in Global Sources 2004, third-party significant coverage about the company in Bloomberg (the two-page article in the print edition signals In Win as the clear focus), significant third-party coverage about the company in CRN—need I go on? WP:MILL is an essay and tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, it's a pretty basic computer case company, but they're also a very big player in their field. I have no conflict of interest in In Win or in any computer company. Hell, I haven't even paid for one of their cases. I just know them from word-of-mouth and found it strange they don't have their own article. I am aware of the very promotional and probably COI-created version of the article that was deleted in 2018. I have not referred to that version in any way for the creation of mine—I wrote it from scratch. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCORP, as properly sourced to RS such as Custom PC and Computer Shopper. Author has declared they have no COI, and per their user page, regularly contributes to computer-related articles; I would have good reason to assume that this version of the article is nothing like the one deleted in 2018. Yeeno (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the compelling arguments of the author. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here from the DYK nom. The article may have some issues, but a lack of notability is not one of them. It also doesn't read like and advertisement, and previous contributions by DigitalIceAge make a COI seem unlikely. I think that the article could use some work, but that doesn't mean it need be deleted. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I have no comment on whether there is an advertising issue with the text of the article itself, the article does appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2022 (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.