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, especially considering the strength of arguments presented and weight given to non-ip voters. IronGargoyle 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Prism[edit]

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

Procedural tagging. No opinion. --OnoremDil 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total failure of the article to assert its subject’s non-obvious notability —Ian Spackman 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) *keep as per article's talk page. notablity established with three independent references - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - manchester evening news articles are merely reports of joiners & leavers, the other articles are either press releases, or reports of co-op bank buying some software. Slow newsday stuff. And nothing since. - Tiswas^(t) 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references provided satisify WP:CORP. CiaranG 09:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as above— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.212.8 (talk)
• Keep: Per above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Delete. There are references only in that periodical titles and dates are listed (such as this one, in its entirety: "Manchester Evening News, 24th October 2005"). There isn't the slightest indication of the references's importance, subjects, scope, or even titles of the articles. --Calton | Talk 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References or not, it doesn't seem notable enough. Hell, I could find references on myself, doesn't mean I'm notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete references are not sufficiently detailed enough to show that they are reliable (i.e. not adds or reprints of press releases) and non-trivial. Local paper coverage in paticular does not ncessarily demonstrate notability per WP:NOT. Eluchil404 20:50, 4 June 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.