- 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 speedy delete. G11 Ronhjones (Talk) 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2359 Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted as a PROD on March 13, previously deleted before that as G11. No reliable sources to establish notability of the subject of this spammy article. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article clearly written by an SEO buzzwords 'expert' who is only using us to spam about a non-notable startup. Nate • (chatter) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 228 search results without a single non-promotional independent item where this company is the main topic. Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Was about to list it myself. Non-notable self-promotion. Whouk (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11: exactly the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.