Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laminar Research

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 of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laminar Research

When I first saw this article it was almost entirely a quote from the president of the company. The article was essentially written as a self-promoting advertisement talking about how great the company, and the president, is.

I attempted to cut out the unverifiable data and rewrite the article, but could not find any information that didn't come from the company itself, or more specifically, information that didn't come from the president of the company. I'm leaving the article in it's current stub form, but the company doesn't seem to be notable enough to have any hope of expanding on it. - CloudedIce 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — They do have a couple of commercial games released, neither of which received stellar reviews. They're right on the fuzzy edge of notablity for me. — RJH 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — That is true, however, if you look at each games' article you can see that the information contained therein covers almost all the verifiable points I could find in the Laminar Research article. It seems kind of pointless to keep this article if it's mostly going to be a repository of links to Laminar Reasearch's games, since that violates WP:NOT. If someone can expand on the article and cite references, then I'm all for keeping it, but I just don't see that happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ice-Soft-Eng (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC).
• Keep — I've added some more detail to the article, but I think there's still potential for expansion (not to mention improvement on my style of writing). Laminar was also notable enough to be featured in a Popular Science article (now an external link), and it could also provide some more information for the article - it's been a while since I've read it properly. --Scott Wilson 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Publisher of games that have gotten themselves into international retail sales. And, knowing the method behind X-Plane, probably an interesting and somewhat unique among game developers. Yep, a good candidate for expansion. That's what stub templates are for. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep weak keep but keep none the less. Nigelthefish 14:27, 1 March 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.