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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analyx[edit]

Analyx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created twice by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Analyx consulting. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 previously.

• This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Analyx_sp._z_o.o._sp._k._.28II.29

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Nothing more than Self-promotion and advertismentt, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. I am finding it hard to see a clear assertion of notability here anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Insufficient coverage to document notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 30 October 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.