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. Considering the last two AfD's, the DRV, the lack of delete arguments in this AfD, and being re-listed three times since January 4th, the concluding summary is not a strong enough consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted after AFD1 over concerns over the sourcing and this was reviewed at deletion review. Although the DRV closed as a procedurally correct outcome I am using my discretion as the DRV closer to relist this for more in depth discussion of the sourcing. As this has already been legitiamately closed as delete a non-consensus outcome should default to the status quo, which is having no article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As i've voted in the past AfDs and because of my expansion of the article, I feel the sourcing is enough to the article to pass notability standards, having multiple articles specifically discussing the company and its accomplishments. This includes sources that are more than just discussions of accepted contracts with other companies, which was a concern in the prior AfD and which I rectified by finding more sources that discussed only the subject in question and nothing else. Silver seren^C 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple third-party sources currently cited in the article cover the subject in sufficient detail. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 18 January 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) 12:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial 3rd party published sourcing showing in the footnotes already. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 25 January 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.