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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SharkTec[edit]

SharkTec (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)

I don't think this company meets the notability criteria. The article ties it to Shark Defense and, in turn, provides sources that may lead to a conclusion that Shark Defense is notable, but none of the sources says anything about SharkTec. I also don't find adequate support online for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the updated version that addresses the notability concerns by listing publications, news articles, magazines, and websites that specifically mention SharkTec. I believe the notability policy & guidelines are met with these new citations. Rmarshall15--Rmarshall15 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:) Please let me know of any concerns regarding the notability criteria so I can address them as I firmly believe this criteria has been satisfied with the additional citations added Rmarshall15 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still none of this has any better convincing signs of a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister:) To my understanding, an article must meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. As per your comment, it seems that you have already concluded that this article is indeed a notable article but you have not seen signs of "a better applicably notable article". It would be appreciated if you could clarify your statement and rationale for why or why not this article should exist under the minimum notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Rmarshall15 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a list of coverage, this particularly needs solid in-depth third-party sources coverage as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No in-depth coverage of the company, just mentions of their repellent, typically in coverage or testing of various repellents. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. and rewrite. Tthis is written as an advertisement "our company" but I think the product is astually notable--perhaps a move into draft space would work best. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 27 February 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.