Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinekinetic


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk)  02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cinekinetic and Mike young
Cinekinetic was previously listed as part of Articles for deletion/Cinesaddle; however, the discussion there was cut short due to both articles being tagged as copyvios. This one's now back, and since it isn't directly cut-and-pasted from their web site so far as I can tell, I'm hesitant to tag it as a speedy under G4. Regardless, it's still advertising, it's still of very dubious notability, and it's still gotta go. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. company does have some recognition. 1800 hits on Google. 581 on yahoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.176.34 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC), creator of article
 * Delete or Move to new article on Cinesaddle (which seems to have some recognition), rather than its creators jnothman talk 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Company fails WP:CORP and founder is not notable otherwise. howcheng   [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you Google correctly, you'll see there are only 299 hits for "cinekinetic". -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete avertising for a NN company amd an NN bio. Pete.Hurd 21:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.