Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheex

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. Consensus is to Keep and that the article now meets GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheex

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

No evidence of any notability for this company. The references are for key personnel and the company's own web-site. Searches reveals a few product reviews and a court case about patent infringement but nothing substantial. Nothing here suggests notability of the company itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability, article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it is based upon the availability of reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic actually comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Leaving aside the high probability that all of these are essentially re-worded press releases, they give no notability to the company. What they might give is notability to a product made by the company, but looking at the similarities in the woding in the sources, I even doubt that. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You have provided no evidence to substantiate your opinion of the sources supposedly being "re-worded press releases"; they are not. These are bylined news articles from reputable news sources. Several of the sources provide significant background and history about the company and its founders. For starters, read the articles from The Huffington Post and CNBC. Then be sure to also read the Columbia Regional Business Report article. Did you even read the articles, or just glance at "similarities in the woding in the sources"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have also added the following sources to my !vote above: [1], [2], [3], [4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 5 May 2016 (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.