- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons: (1) Not Notable - does not meet the criteria for a notable software company and (2) spam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs).
- See also recent DRV discussion here - crz crztalk 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I think that the citations in the article shows that the company does satisfy WP:CORP. --Karnesky 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets the notability criteria of WP:WEB, specifically "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Originally, there were some WP:COI concerns with this article, but I see no WP:SPAM or WP:POV issues with the current content. -- Satori Son 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:WEB passed. --- RockMFR 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:WEB, and it's not blatant spam in any way, shape, or form. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't read like spam, passes WP:WEB. SkierRMH 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not spam, and is notable enough for a WP article.
- Keep - It certainly seems notable under WP:WEB and is most certainly not spam. Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per all the above DelPlaya 03:39, 22 December 2006 (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.