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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UIEvolution[edit]

Non-notable former subsidiary of Square Enix. The most blatant of advertising, literally stating "our software technology". Things that notable companies once owned are not inherently notable, just as a hat that Robert Redford once owned wouldn't get its own article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising and so vapidly meaningless that it's patent nonsense as well: UIEvolution software technology and solutions power dynamic application experiences for any device, platform or network enabling consumers to access their content anytime, anywhere. UIEvolution is a leader in bringing rich content and services beyond the personal computer to a variety of devices.... If it's obvious advertising, notability is a side issue at best. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I didn't SPEEDY is the fact that it was a subsidiary of Square Enix, which is a passing jab at importance. The SPAM can be easily removed (although I don't think there'd be anything left). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this software company article lacks 3rd party references establishing notability. Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 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.