Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioby

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ioby

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is only one reliable source, and the second source is questionable. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the two sources in the article, I found this in the Christian Science Monitor. It's an interview, but there's a good exposition of the organisation from the CSM writer as well. Inks.LWC, I'm not sure why you think the second source is unreliable - the Wall Street Journal is usually considered a reliable source. Could you elaborate on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that was poor wording on my part; I meant that WSJ was the reliable source and the other was questionable. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, thanks. :) The Dowser reference does look like a press release, although from the about page, Dowser does seem to be independent of Ioby. If it isn't a press release, it's doing a good job of disguising itself as one. As to Dowser's reliability in general, It looks like it might just pass muster at RSN, but I would be interested to see the discussion... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News search brings up quite a few articles.[1] Search results can be mined for references. LK (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting with potential. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:19, 3 June 2013 (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.