Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Winds Interactive

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Winds Interactive

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company with 100 employees would have to be really innovative to be notable. That doesn't seem to be the case here. This article lists no notable products of this company, only notable clients, which is not enough. The article lacks significant independent coverage of this company. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Not even a clear indication of importance, WP:A7. Msnicki (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything to meet either WP:CORP or the GNG. I wouldn't speedy delete it, but my !vote here is to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Press releases do not establish encyclopedic notability for this rather ordinary business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list o' clients probably makes it look worse than it is. Prune the laundry list, and it has a reasonable basis for an article about the company. Possibly consider it a 'stub'. Not a recent drive-by addition, either. References date back to 2008, showing some potential for staying power.Cander0000 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what makes it look like it should be deleted is the complete and total absence of even a single reliable independent source WP:GNG. The list of clients is just icing on the cake. The age of the article is irrelevant WP:LONGTIME. Msnicki (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2011 (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.