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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omninode[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion owing to concerns over general notability. No specific claim to notability or significance is made and the only references are to the businesses own website. RA (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just notability, also a case of WP:COI and WP:ARTSPAM. The creator seems to be on Wikipedia to promote his work, whether it be this or the CSDed Application Fabric. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests those sources simply don't exist. From browsing the company website and the vague gobbledygook found there, I'm not even convinced the company actually exists. The obvious issues of WP:COI and WP:Advertising don't help. Msnicki (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article 3rd party refs needed to establish notability; created by an SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 13 June 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.