Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innopath


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Innopath
Ad. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Heh, the IP that created this is pretty blatently owned by Innopath if you fish around for 5 seconds. Nevertheless, is this company notable?  29,000 google hits.  They claim to have sold their technology on 60 million handsets.  That seems to mean they meet a basic guideline for company notability.  I can't really figure out how to vote at this moment, since the article was obviously written as self-promotion by someone with that company.  --W.marsh 03:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: we shouldn't have to make a good article just because a possibly notable company spammed us. Someone can always write a good article later. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as copyvio of this . It is notable enough under WP:CORP as there are external sources of information available through Google news and .  According to this Yahoo! Profile, they were formerly known as DoonGo Technologies and was founded as a dot.com in 1999 see . Capitalistroadster 06:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy candidate because innopath.com is not a comercial content provider (like an encyclopedia or magazine). Kappa 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If not, why do they place © 2005 InnoPath, All Rights Reserved on their page. --JJay 12:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ad. *drew 09:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising. They probably "copyviod" their own text, so a speedy is not appropriate, but keeping isn't either. Feel free to put it on Requested articles with a few source links if you think it should have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 14:49, 22 October 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.