Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Communications

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. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonon Communications

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

They are a company with only a small amount of coverage, I couldn't find any more. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Deletion

As per Wikipedia As per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

This clearly mentions a negative case, that: "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject ....is not sufficient to establish notability." This aspect is agreed.

However, the coverage qualifies as substantial and direct coverage by independent secondary sources. This reference sources are:

Periodicals and links of repute and significant coverage/distribution in India.
The coverage is not a part of any media syndications or paid news, and is independent coverage.
The article refers to and associates items only referred to by in the coverage from secondary sources; and there is no marketing/sales content in this.

Therefore the article should not be deleted and be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Communications. Macky0209 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very reluctant to vote keep on a company of only 30 employees, but there is in-fact a sufficient amount of source material to support at least a good quality stub. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CorporateM. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2015 (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.