Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyssa (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Molex. If there are questions about having a different redirect target, you can raise the question on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyssa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored to userspace (courtesy @Muboshgu: following a Refund request) but then restored to mainspace without going through AfC or addressing the issues raised at AfD. Still no WP:ORG level coverage Star Mississippi 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a couple of HBR "case studies" in the past and they're a mixed bag of quality. They can be very thin on "Independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" (as per ORGIND). Looking at the summary for this case study, it reads as if it recounts events that has occurred already, I don't see any indications of independent content. Also, concerned that the company itself seems to be using it to "promote' themselves by providing "first-hand insights" on the case study. HighKing++ 15:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 00:35, 25 February 2023 (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.