Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronics for Imaging


 * 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronics for Imaging

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating as speedy was declined. Seems to be a war between two camps: half want it to be weirdly promotional, half want it to be overwhelmingly coatrackish. Either way, it's lost (or, rather, never had) any semblance of encyclopedic relevance. Justen (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep. It became notable due to the controversy ; I see some passing coverage on Google Books; it's on NASDAQ. Without the corp shooting itself in the foot, I'd be on the fence. As it is - congratulations, you are in Wikipedia - even through primarily as an example of bad business practices. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The awards are trivial, and the labor-law issue is basically ONEEVENT. I could find nothing significantly ABOUT the company in sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2014 (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.