Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sproose

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sproose[edit]

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

The company referenced does not exist any longer and the article appears to have been a fluff piece anyway Renaissongsman (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the company no longer exists is not an issue - many articles are about entities which no longer exist, this is not a reason for deletion. The 'fluffery' can be dealt with by editing - AfD is not in place of tidy up. There are at least a couple of decent references, pieces written by staffers on CNET, etc, which would seem to indicate that the company should meet notability criteria - so the article should be tidied up, not deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As noted above, comapny seemed to have gained some notability. Definitely needs updating and cleanup. A merge might also be worth considering.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough reliable sources cover to show that this site had enough notability to pass the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:38, 5 November 2013 (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.