Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re:invention


 * 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.  Sango  123   03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:invention
Notability of company not asserted, deprod'ed -- Koffieyahoo 05:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in the least: there is likely nothing to write about other than the cruft currently present.  Falcon 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete thanks for the marketing brochure. (Company gets bonus points for a name so cutesy it hurts.) Opabinia regalis 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. (WP:CORP) Adambiswanger1 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN — M e ts 501 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Figures that only virtually unknown apartment dwelling and student-in-training men (check their profiles for fact-verification) have posted here for discussion, and their comments are overtly personal (and offensive) in nature (flying in the face of defined wikipedia standards). This hard-hitting business report revealed serious gender barriers in VC investments. The story needs to be told. That's why it was covered by BusinessWeek. Anon 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Barely notable. As others have stated, also fails to meet WP:CORP--Auger Martel 08:13, 17 June 2006 (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.