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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Has been speedied twice, and the author complained. Rschen7754 (TC) 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has yet to demonstrate the notability of the company. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite coaching, no notability demonstrated - Toddstreat1 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The one source that is listed in the article states that the company was the source of the article. Toddstreat1 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I see no assertion of meeting notability. Frankly, this reads more like an advert than an Encylopedia article. lacks verifiable sourcing and may be an example of WP:NOT. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly just an advert, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:16, 27 October 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.