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. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NovoDynamics[edit]

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

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But it will need more source. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources? Presently, it doesn't have any sources. I tried a google news search, but all of the coverage listed there is PR releases. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources using google like this one http://www.hightechviews.com/index.php?articleID=271, but I am not going to work on that page. Just thought the content of the page is good enough, if sources can be provided. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the above source accepts story submissions. The reliability and the independence of the source is therefore in question. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is signed by associate editor. That said, the other articles and the topic choice in general suggest that this source is just promotional in its nature. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Fails CORP Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP: there is no indication that this company will ever make its ways to the schoolbooks. That said, VERUS (one of its products) is indeed likely to become notable if isn't yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - No signficat coverage in reliable soruces. The Hightechviews article is only one source, and I am a bit dubious about it with the article reading like it was cribbed from press release material. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This business's work with Arabic script OCR has gotten a small level of scholarly notice, much of which is paywalled[1][2][3]. But an article on this business's only claim to fame would be better off as an article on Arabic optical character recognition; apart from that this business has little claim to a standalone article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:51, 22 February 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.