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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CustomInk[edit]

CustomInk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails any real test of notability. Refs are very light-weight and mostly read like press releases. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per WP:NRVE (topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than those in articles), as clearly passing WP:CORPDEPTH and that the topic passes the real test of notability. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

• The Wall Street Journal
• The Washington Post
• Techcrunch
• CNBC
• Forbes
• I Love You More Than My Dog
• Wiley Pathways E-Business
• PC Magazine (short article)
• CBS News2 (Reno)
• Times Dispatch (short article)

– Please seriously consider utilizing basic due diligence in source searching as recommended per section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to have enough available sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per VMS, seems to have enough sources available to pass WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:55, 2 May 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.