Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeusM
As I mentioned elsewhere, the three references consist of a stated press release, and two others which are in sources which have not been demonstrated to meet |the reliable source criteria and which read like press releases albeit without the fact that they are press releases being mentioned in the articles. The awards show no evidence of meeting |the notability criteria - and non-notable awards would not help to demonstrate the notability of the company. While WebHorizon is correct that journalists do indeed often use press releases as a starting point for articles, in this case - despite re-reading the cited references several times - I see no evidence that this is the case here, as the overall tone of the two pieces appear to me to be almost press-releases anyway. I'm sure that WebHorizon will pick up on my phrase "appear to me...", but at the end of the day, we are all saying what we think is the case. WebHorizon may not be using the phrase, but to all intents and purposes s/he is saying "it appears to me that they are not press releases". While making allowances for a relative new editor (just under 3 months), I find myself asking what WebHorizon's particular interest in this company is?As always, I am happy to be persuaded that this company does in fact meet the notability criteria, but so far I see nothing that convinces me of that fact, and despite repeated searches, I have not found anything which would indicate their notability
— User:Phantomsteve, 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:N (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)