Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savi Technology

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savi Technology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not finding coverage to establish notability. The source used to save this from deletion in 2004 isn't enough. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added some additional sourcing that meets
WP:GNG in addition to the Washington Post article. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this barely passes the threshold for notability per use of independent sources. The Washington Post article helped. However, Bloomberg is just routine business information. But it is useful for information only. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While the current publications are good, I don't think it is still enough to meet notability requirements for corporations. However, I believe that additional sources for the company might be found. Still, it look too early to me. --Chartwind (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Barely passed notability thanks to added sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (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.