Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberPower PCs

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 Delete - WP:CORP issues. The aricle does nothing to stake a claim of notability based on success, innovation, inventions, market share or notability for being ultra-terrible (none that are soruced). We only have a description of a machine it made, and its own website (not RS). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CyberPower PCs

CyberPower PCs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatent advert. Main contributor is obviously an employee or owner. Bayyoc 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is probably just an advertisement. Useight 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Nearly a million G-hits. Morgan Wick 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, large number of Google hits including articles criticising their workmanship. Just needs a tidy.Mmoneypenny 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:V. Does need some cleaning, though. -- MarcoTolo 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:V. Abeg92contribs 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete verifiability is pointless here. Notability for companies WP:CORP is the criteria to satisfy. It is not on the Nasdaq and the only sources are the company's web site and a "PC Magazine Review" that is nothing more than a product listing on a web site where you can buy one of their computers. --Infrangible 02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. When did stock-exchange listing become a criterion? Cyberpower PCs is not on Nasdaq because it's privately owned - so are Cargill and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, for that matter. As for secondary sources, the company's products have been reviewed by numerous magazines - for a start, see here (yes, I know that's the company site), or here, or here, or here. There are even plenty of sources to improve the "Criticisms" section... -- MarcoTolo 03:51, 17 May 2007 (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.