Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techlogix

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Techlogix

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think it meets WP:CORP. Hello32020 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• WP:CORP first point say The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.. There are many for this company.

1. A PC-world article on Jezba.
2. A research paper on its product Maestro Evaluation of Advanced Automotive Electrical System Architectures Using MAESTrO
3. Another research paper on Maestro MAESTrO - A Software Tool for the Design and Evaluation of advanced Automotive Electrical Power Systems
4. Another Newspaper article TECHLOGIX: BUILDING THE e-FUTURE
5. and another article Developers Unite Behind FlashPoint's Digita to Bridge Digital Imaging into Business Workflow

Hence may vote is ...

Keep: based on above. --- ابراهيم 11:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Based on the above, the reasonable conclusion seems to be to keep because those who suggest deletion do not specify why this article does not meet WP:CORP. Hence, I also vote to keep. --- User:wenhsiu November 2, 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads as advertorial, replete with peacock terms, evidence of emetign WP:CORP is lacking, article is largely uncited and coverage cited looks like press releases. Could be fixed, but not without a good deal of work. Guy 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If an article is not written in a good way then we improve it instead of deleting it. We delete an article when its subject is not at all encyclopaedic. I have given list of some publications that are not published by the company itself and I can find many more. That is sufficient to qualify for WP:CORP standards. --- ابراهيم 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:CORP. A poorly written article needs to be improved, not deleted. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Torinir. --Oakshade 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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.