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. Wizardman 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable, Original Research, Promotional, also just created on :nl — Zanaq (?) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Storng Delete per nom, possible A7 --Numyht (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it falls foul of G11 (Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic) and A7 (An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant) -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article should be cleaned up, but company is absolutely notable. And no original research. I'm an expert in the field, they are my competitor. JacobH (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question so as an expert in the field and a competitor you are able to supply the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources to verify this notability? Or rewrite the article from a Neutral Point of View (or at least more balanced)? If so please do and I'll gladly review my comments above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did it on the Dutch version, with reliable sources. Will do. JacobH (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current version is virtually an attack piece. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (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.