Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RadiumOne

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The result was keep(withdrawn by nominator)(non-admin closure).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RadiumOne

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Of the three references, one is about the founder's criminal charges with only a passing reference to the company, one is a clear press release, and the third is a dead link. LukeSurl^{t c} 12:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you've undersold the first source in the article. It's not about the criminal charges with a passing reference to the company, it's about the company with a passing reference to the criminal charges. I agree that the second (and actually, if you archive.org it, the third) is a press release. Some other sources that aren't about the criminal charges: AdAge, CMO, Bloomberg, B&T, The Next Web. Moswento ^talky 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been comprehensively edited by Tokyogirl79 and as a result is significantly improved. You may wish to withdraw this Afd as it looks as if notability has been established. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the mentions of the charges entirely and found a lot of sources. What helps it is that it's listed in a few books as being one of the earliest/first examples of its type. The TechCrunch links are pretty suspect, although I did keep one of them, but they're sort of notorious for just re-writing press releases for some of their articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I'm happy for this to be withdrawn given Tokyogirl79's extensive edits. --15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of source coverage given in article at present. — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2014 (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.