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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricelock[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. I have tried to clean-up the article, removing non-notable claims, inappropriate external links, etc. and add references as best I could. I am having trouble finding reliable sources to establish any claims of notability. The only claims currently in the article are an IMA Outstanding Achievement Award, which I can only find a primary source reporting for; Risk & Insurance Magazine named the CEO an innovator, which I can not find any reference for at all; and winning the Platts Global Energy Award of Excellence in the Rising Star Category, for which I can only find the primary source. Considering the lack of secondary coverage of any of these awards, I can not find any other notability factor to keep the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks okay, but references are news about the company and the others don't look like releable sources. Decent work on the article itself, though. –BuickCentury Driver 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IMA Outstanding Achievement Award, 2010 Risk Innovator™ and Responsibility Leader, and 2010 Platts Global Energy Award of Excellence in the Rising Star Category look to me like canonical examples of the sort of trade award that does not make a business notable; rather, reliance on these things to support claims of notability only make the article look more like advertising. The one news story that looks fairly independent [1] doesn't really establish that this business did anything that will make history, and the other [2] is essentially a press release based story announcing that financing has been acquired. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been speedily deleted 4 times already, including twice during March 2011. WP:SPAM applies since the author is a professional PR firm. Swim900 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it's a borderline case. I was going to suggest deleting until I found this article on Bloomberg which would not exist for a completely non-notable entity. Bloomberg is a reliable source, and coverage there reaches the notability bar, at least for me. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree it's a borderline case, but Bloomberg article is enough for me Interstellarsheep (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)— Interstellarsheep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.