Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunstone Circuits

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone Circuits

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

Topic does not pass WP:ORG or GNG. I have done the standard searches, and I find no independent sources that discuss the company (not even simple news coverage). There is no indication that this company should be considered notable. WP:NOT#Advertizing may be an issue as well. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I also think this company fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable, in-depth coverage of the company itself. Most of the information came from a COI source and contains promotional content. JFHJr (㊟) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These guys were there in the early days. Historical value. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being "there in the early days" is not notable, unless sources discuss this fact. If there is historical value, there should be sources to support that historical value. I have not been able to find any. If you can find sources I would be happy to withdraw the nomination... but without them, no. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand the desire for a more thorough discussion before this is closed... may I ask that we not relist it a fourth time. There comes a point when we have to accept that everyone who has something to say has said it. The next question is whether the lack of discussion says anything about the topic's notability (or not)?
Delete Other than a penalty notice issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, I am not finding anything beyond routine product and appointment marketing announcements for this company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per AllyD. The subject would seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and any historical significance (part of being "there in the early days") would need to be verified by reliable sources which is doesn't seem is possible. Stalwart111 00:02, 8 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.