Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itech

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itech[edit]

Article that reads as an advertisement tagged for one year. No sources, and has been tagged to add sources for 18 months. Wikipedia is better off without this article until a neutral, sourced article can be re-written. Miami33139 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's been around that long, no one's going to fix it. To top it off, the company is apparently going away (see this short piece in the New York Times). While being the subject of an NY Times article might suggest some notability, the fact that the company is closing down makes it highly unlikely in my opinion that this article is either meaningful or will ever improve. Cool3 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If it's been around that long, no one's going to fix it." What? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage of the merger by the New York Times indicates that the company is very likely notable. Indeed other sources are available, offering coverage both pre- and post-merger announcement: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Jfire (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep Some notability indicated, but article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous brand of hockey equipment. A rewrite does not require deletion. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article clearly needs some work, but subject passes notability without a doubt. One of the most influential equipment brands in hockey history. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Sources found by Jfire are a strong indication of notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately a notable brand. -Djsasso (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JFire. Grsz¹¹ 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company for which reliable sources exist to create a verifiable, NPOV, NOR article. Clean-up appears to have occurred since nomination. Any other vital concerns should be addressed now and the remainder can be accomplished by the WP:DEADLINE. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The solution to a problem article that is very obviously notable is not deletion. Reso lute 01:01, 18 February 2009 (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.