- 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) 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whitelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article has been around just a little too long for me to speedy it without discussion IMO, but db-spam and db-org speedy deletion are both solid options. None of the English-language hits at Google archives obviously refers to this company. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sole claim to notability is 'the blogosphere is talking about it', which isn't even supported by the source given. Non-notable company/product. ninety:one 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure advertisement, no notability. Neelix (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. One of the two references is another wikipedia article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No way to make an article out of this advert. None of the links go anywhere useful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2009 (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.