Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 30

ECOTIC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

ECOTIC Association is one of the key players of the e-Waste management industry in Romania, implementing innovative projects focused on awareness raising and e-Waste Collection. As one of the most important players in the Romanian market it deserves an entry in the Romanian version of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The article has been revised various times and new third-party sources have been added as references. Should there be need for new revisions these can be made once the page is restored. Thank you! Liviu843 (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Liviu843[reply]

BOXX Technologies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original RFD for this article was only commented on (including the submitter) by a total of five editors and largely on the basis of supposedly being an "advertorially-toned page", which I dispute. This is a company which has largely taken the place of the old Silicon Graphics in making high-end commodity PC workstations in the post-RISC Unix workstation era (2000s decade). The company is admittedly small but not new; they were founded in 2002 and, like SGI before them, their main costumers are in movie special effects and high-end graphics applications. The original article was not perfect in the sense of good third-party sources but this can easily be rectified. Also, BOXX Technologies was the first company to actually ship 64-bit x86 PC systems in 2003; this is provable with third-party sources. Bumm13 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The main issue in the AfD was that the sourcing didn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If you have better sources then you are welcome to write a revised or draft version with those sources. As long as it's a significant improvement on the AfDed version it won't be deleted without a new AfD. Hut 8.5 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - while it is true that the nomination started by citing a fixable problem, it did progress to less fixable problems and a brief assessment of the quality of sources. The other arguments for deletion, though, made no reference to anything "advertorially-toned" and focused on the quality of coverage and the reliability of sources, including one editor who clearly assessed each of the available sources and found one that might be considered an exception. I can't see any way the closer could have come to a different interpretation of consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the AFD. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-creation of draft if this is a request to allow re-creation of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]