Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Füritechnics

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 keep, almost no consensus, not that it matters. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Füritechnics

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

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD G11. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that the content might be salvagable, and the company might meet WP:CORP. This matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The content is salvageable, and does meet criteria of WP:CORP. It has independent media releases.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]--KZTalk• Contribs 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cut. The knives are not particularly interesting to me. I cannot comment on the corporation that sells them. YechielMan 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very week keep I am very puzzled about the sources. ipaustralia is an official government site, but it seems devoted to publicizing local inventions. Possibly this could be taken as an indication of what the australian IP office does think is important and therefore can be considered N--but it seems very strange to me that a government organization should actually do this. Most of the refs given are derivatives of the same government press release. If a government body acts as an advertising agency,do we treat its productions as advertising? DGG 04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I found some more. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] If we are talking about the person in charge of that company, notability is assured... The first two sources aren't very reliable and the others aren't really specific about the company, but I still think that there is notability in that company. The last source is particularly interesting, despite the short mention. --KZTalk• Contribs 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Notable within its (quite narrow) area. `'mikka 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It also lists some sources in the website [17]. --KZTalk• Contribs 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Found a source in NYT. [18] --KZTalk• Contribs 00:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
According to this government source[19], Furitechnics is one of the most important innovation in Australia --KZTalk• Contribs 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has sources from multiple independent sources. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the number of sources seems to indicate notability. Lankiveil 07:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, external non-primary sources. Rimmeraj 10:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete While it may meet WP:CORP, the article fails to assert the notability of the subject beyond celeb endorsments and use. If the company has made notable advancments in it's area of operation, then it may be worthy of a keep if such information was added there. I personally feel that the CSD G11 should be upheld as the entry looks nothing more than an advertisment in it's current form. Thewinchester (talk) 11:07, 14 April 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.