The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17.
|
This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content. | – Not really applicable | – | ||
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times.
Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy) |
– | Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make. | |||
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24.
|
Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh. | – | – At least it's actually vaguely about the subject? | ||
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age.
|
– | – | Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating? | – | |
– | – | There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company) | – |
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.If technically meets SIGCOV but is nowhere near supporting notability. That's what I mean by barely partially. If we had a source that had two, longer paragraphs about the company itself that can't count as one as its own, I think we can combine it with a similar (but different, ofc) source to count as 1 source unit for notability, while my minimum is 2 source units. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)