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 delete.  Sandstein  09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richter7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previously deleted as an A7, but discussion on DRV determined that the awards are at least an 'assertion of notability. Still encyclopedic notability remains a concern. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Very interesting case. Some of the linked sources don't agree or disagree with the facts they are supposedly supporting. The the article in The New York Times shows that they have significant clients such as Medtronic and the Chamber of Commerce of Park City, Utah; however the article itself was in the fashion section (and often includes non-notable companies with quirky things... ahem, yes --I read it). This coverage appears to fall afoul of WP:COMP, whereas "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This coverage appears to be trivial an incidental to their actual work, for that reason I am going with the weak delete. --Bobak (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed several of the references to more accurately match the facts cited. I am also attempting to assemble a more complete list of notable awards with independent references. Montypics (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP... if we still follow that, I mean - I have seen un-notable corporations that clearly fail WP:CORP being kept. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Been around for 30-something years, several hundred mentions in Lexis-Nexis news archive, etc. --Delirium (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old not equal notable. Lexis-Nexis keeps press releases from paid PR wires. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite or Delete - After changing around the intro sentence for WP:MoS and reading through the article, I find that it is still weak on assertion of notability. Also, a list of awards don't make a subject more or less encyclopedic if there is no significance. I always get awards for entering a contest, but so does everybody else at the show. -- Emana (Talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (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.