Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniblue Systems


 * 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. Tone 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Uniblue Systems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to meet WP:CORP. Article was previously prodded for this reason. No outside sources.  Graymornings (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom and A7 - Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject. A lot of companies make software for Windows. A lot of companies are Microsoft certified.  Mattie TK  11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Non-notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Google has 22 news articles on the company, including 5 from Business wire (picked up by Reuters), PC World, PC Magazine, Scientific Computing, PC Magazine Online, and ZDNet.com.au. Google itself has 176,000. Although it is much easier to delete an article than contribute to it, Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." it appears that the nominator and the delete editors did not take one minute to do this.travb (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on keep or delete, but I'll just point out that a good number of those Google News hits are press releases and therefore don't establish notability.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:28, 9 January 2009 (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.