Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bragi (company)

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) !dave 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bragi (company)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Quite a bit of coverage of the product in the form of product reviews and coverage of capabilities - however that would possibly advance the cause of the Bragi Dash, not the company. WP:TNT also due to promotional quality and over focus on product features. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with deleting this article as an advertisement but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that most of the coverage is on the product and not on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the company is where the product is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This particular company is worth covering; the products themselves may be notable , but the best way to cover them is in a combination article like this. The promotional nature can be fixed readily enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 25 January 2018 (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.