- 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Classical Turns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage, which fails WP:CORP. My PROD was contested with a talkpage comment that the article had been edited so as not to be "unduly . . . promotional"; however, the problem isn't the way the article is written, it's the company's fundamental lack of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rather obvious. No coverage by reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:WEB. Recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2010 (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.