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. The discussion by the numbers is fairly close between no consensus and keep, but keep arguments correctly reflect sources and the permanence of notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Technologies[edit]

This company is defunct, and there is little useful content on the article page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted Millennium_Plus should go too. Polarpanda (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a company is defunct is not a reason to delete it. Once notable, always notable. In this case, the manner of the company's disappearance adds to its notability rather than detracting from it. - Eastmain (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I believe that it is not notable or of value based on its content. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Horizon Technologies" is apparently a name of breathtaking unoriginality, so News Archive searches directly yield little relevant. Coupled with the name of the product "Millennium Plus", Google News Archive has never heard of them. General search yields some sources of complaints from people who were led to believe they could make money fast on the Internet selling this stuff, but nothing that looks like a reliable source. A perfect lesson in why spam is bad. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Further evidence as to notability: An earlier version of the article has a reference to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/victimw/bissett_cop.pdf which relates to a guilty plea by one Chester Frank Bissett. A search for that name provides a newspaper article from The Arizona Republic at http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2008/08/21/20080821gr-indictment.html If the Arizona Republic thinks the story is worth covering.... – Eastmain (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is better, but I'm not sure that a legal pleading to an apparent charge of fraud, and a newspaper story reporting the crime, are out of the ordinary enough to confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn average company. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Not an "nn average company" as suggested by SchmuckyTheCat, but one that existed only to cheat people. - Eastmain (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reasons cited for deletion, coverage appears to meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "defunct" is irrelevant to notability , and so is the article being incomplete. The sources are fully sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (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.