- 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IUpload (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This company is not notable. It enjoys some coverage, though very little in depth, let alone by multiple sources. Looking into coverage, I can't find any claim to notability, or anything more at all to say about the company. It fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH despite initially encouraging search results; I found WP:LOTSOFSOURCES that don't establish notability. JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:15, 15 January 2012 (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.