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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netwitness

[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a few links but they seem to be PR and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Seems to be nothing more than a directory of non-notable corporate history events and Self-promotion Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New York Times article mentions the copmany in the lead. The rest of the coverage also looks fairly deep. The article is spammy, but bad writing can be fixed through the normal editing processes, not by AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good coverage and agree the writing needs fixing, not outright removal. Pjhansen (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2012 (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.