Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etheric Networks


 * 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. To my dismay and two relistings, I have closed my nomination as no consensus, I may renominate the article after a few months have passed. SwisterTwister  talk  02:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Etheric Networks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable company and I have found insufficient sources to support this article. Despite that the bizjournals.com link that the article cites contains 3 pages, the entire bizjournals article reads like an advertisement and wouldn't be useful for Wikipedia. The only nearly useful information that the article provides is the "200 customers" which most certainly could've changed, considering that the bizjournals article is from 2003. Google News provided this San Jose Mercury-News article which lists them twice to compare company rates. Google News archives provided nothing useful aside from forums and reviews. Google News archives provided articles here and here, both mentioned the company once. Surprisingly, there is a Korean news article here, considering that I am not fluent with Korean, I wouldn't know how useful that link would be. The only useful link I have found is this web.archive.org link that provides a history of the company and its founder. Google Books found one book that cited Wikipedia as the source for all of the content, which would evidently be citing ourselves. SwisterTwister  talk  04:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems like a perfect fit for any definition of non-notability.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 What do you wait for? This article should have already been deleted.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * uncertain SwisterTwister asked me for my opinion, but i fear I will have to be a little less helpful than she probably hoped for, because can not myself decide: they're regionally notable, and I am unsure whether this is enough.,  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 24 September 2012 (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.