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 keep. Wizardman 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collarity[edit]

This page seems to merely mention that this company exists and provides links to pages that the company provides services for. Looks like Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Stijndon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one of the links has what I would consider to be decent coverage in terms of notability standards - one gives a mention that it exists, and the other has nothing to do with the company even in the slightest. Even with that one good reference, that can hardly be classified as significant... Addionne (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added an additional reference with more direct focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robrustad (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe reference links are now more in line with notability standards.--Saramontrio (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I get to vote, too. The page is so empty! Stijndon (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added company history.--Robrustad (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added high-level product summary and company infobox.--Robrustad (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Being mentioned in an article in Information Week gives a slight claim to notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Per Jedilofty, and this article needs inline citations. --Meld shal 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should Wikipedia list every company in the world? This one does not justify notability beyond that which any normal company might have. Certainly not worthy of an article, and the one that is presently up looks like a short advert for the company itself.Wikigonish (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has sufficient references, and it is for a company/product which has high public visibility - search engines. I think this is of general interest and notability. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added inline citations, additional references, and new technology focus section to better explain notability.--Robrustad (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WSJ mention is pretty trivial, but the other coverage sufficiently establishes notability. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:33, 12 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.