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. We seem to have reached consensus that the sources present in the article do not create notability for its subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Supply[edit]

Logic Supply (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)

Another Articles for Creation "special". This was previously deleted (in 2013) for lack of notability after it was created by an editor with an openly declared conflict of interest featuring (almost exclusively) local coverage from the area in which the company is located. The new references aren't much better - passing mentions of specific employees, quotes from other employees and political press releases that mention that particular employees have been appointed to things. None of those allow the company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. We didn't have that last time and we don't have that now. Those that constitute significant coverage are from local newspapers, those from media further away could not be considered significant coverage. Combining the two doesn't get us much closer to notability than we were a year ago. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now read through the previous deletion discussion for a Logic Supply article, I was able to glean a number of important takeaways (thanks to those who participated in that discussion). In response, I have added additional information and references found on reputable websites. I have also included mention of Logic Supply's role in supporting the ongoing Maker Movement with their Inspire.logicsupply.com BeagleBone Black resource website which is now part of the "Learn" navigation on the BeagleBone.org webiste. In response to the remaining local references I understand that local publications, regardless of how reputable, often don't carry a significant amount of weight, however they are only intended to substantiate the history and background of the company. The other, non-Vermont-based references meanwhile do, in my opinion, aid in supporting notability. In some cases, the newly added references are product reviews, and while I understand that product reviews do not implicitly enhance notability, there did seem to be an opinion in the previous deletion discussion that they are relevant in demonstrating the company's standing in its industry, especially when published by well-respected publications. I welcome other opinions about the article's merritt and suggestions about how it might be improved. Mobydickulous (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really just more of the same. There might have been such an opinion but it wasn't the prevailing consensus and the article was deleted anyway. We need significant coverage of the company in multiple reliable sources. Beyond substantiating notability, you need to provide information with which a properly sourced (verified) article can be written. Short product reviews tell us nothing about the company and provide no information with which we can build an article (beyond a list of confirmed products). St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not encyclopedic--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources appear valid. K7L (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that the links aren't broken? Sure. But in what way are they reliable sources giving the subject significant coverage? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Stalwart indicated, there simply isn't sufficient referencing to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lack of notability at the previous AfD remains the case DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The lack of notability when it was deleted in 2013 is still present. Frmorrison (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I reviewed the references, I started to get excited when I saw the article in Forbes. Then, I read the article. It's not about Logic Supply, it's about women who hold leadership positions in businesses, and Logic Supply was just used as an example. That doesn't speak to notability. Then I looked at the two references in Tom's Hardware. Just perfunctory directory listings. I'm afraid this doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 22 November 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.