Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottevest

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scottevest

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

This product/company does not pass WP:GNG requirements of substantial (non-trivial) coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. While it has some coverage, certainly more in its own right than its also non-notable CEO, this subject still fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, litigation history isn't helping; it appears in some of the more reliable coverage I've found, but does not indicate any sort notability, and itself was not extensively covered. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep needs more non-PR sources, but I think WP:N is just met. John Daker (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 December 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews like [1], [2] and especially, [3] from Fodor's appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:11, 24 December 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 21:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per review sources listed above by User:Msnicki. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 5 January 2012 (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.