Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADF Solutions

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADF Solutions

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

unassessed article which appears to be written like an advertisement, and does not appear to hinder any significance. Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - okay, the first two points raised in the nomination aren't really reasons for deletion. Ill be honest - I don't know what the third part means - hinder any significance...? Agree entirely that it's written like an advertisement, but that's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. The sourcing isn't great; my assessment thereof:

1. Washington Post - pretty good

2. Popular Mechanics - passing mention of one of the subject's products in a list of 12 such products

3. DFI - an article which is mostly about the industry, not the subject in question. However, the article does mention the subject (and only the subject, no other companies) and says their product was highest rated by the US DOJ.

4. Interview with the company owner. Not generally much good as a source.

5. Public Service News - about the industry in general, doesn't mention the subject at all.

6. Nothingham Post - seems okay, obviously local in scope but not from the local area of the company in question (if it's US based)

But I also found:

7. This review of their product.

8. This item which seems to have been based on a press release, though the content editors of the site say they don't accept news in that form and that they produce content themselves.

On balance, I'm not entirely convinced that there's the depth of coverage we would normally want to see for a company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, but I don't think we're very far away. Another quality source would probably tip it over the edge for me. But I'm not ready to call this non-notable and the fact that they seem to have done business with almost every government in the Western world weighs on me. Perhaps the nominator could specify what exactly they were concerned about here that fits a deletion rationale. Otherwise, I'd probably be inclined to suggest a good dose of copy-editing first. Stalwart111 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Stalwart111. Moreover, the article doesn't really seem to be written like an advertisement. smt cha hal 06:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I agree with the nominator, it is more advertisement/promotion then not. If it is keep it should be fundamentally rewritten. I'm just not seeing clear notability here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:28, 28 March 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.