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. W.marsh 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cipherium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)

Looks like an advertising page. Products are described in fuzzy marketing language. No hard facts about them or the company itself (revenue/staff numbers, founding date...) High on a tree 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, borderline A7 candidate (fails to assert notability). Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company has been mentioned in a R.O.C. government website. That alone could be considered notable. The link is here.--Kylohk 09:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not offer a claim to notability anf there are no sources. The R.O.C. government website mentioned above reads as a rather spammy puff piece and fails as an independent reliable source. Nuttah68 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP for lack of any independent coverage in reliable sources. Any coverage I did find appeared to be company press releases.--Kubigula (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2007 (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.