Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaforic (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Metaforic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

previously deleted this year, at Articles for deletion/Metaforic. I dont think anything has changed since then. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP. Lots of references are listed, but they are not from independent or reliable sources. They are things like press releases, routine profiles in trade magazines, and non-notable trade awards. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Still new to Wikipedia. Tried to mirror page after Arxan Technologies Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arxan_Technologies. Will continue to work on and improve with reliable sources. Jillianlj87 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, subject has received passing mention from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and as I stated before in the previous AfD, the subject has received significant coverage from one reliable source (the BBC), but one significant coverage article does not notability make. As mentioned above by MelanieN the vast majority of the passing mentions could be considered routine coverage or press releases. Therefore, IMHO the subject has not yet received sufficient in-depth coverage to be considered notable as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2013 (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.