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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anametrix[edit]

Anametrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources, and fails WP:GNG. The coverage I found was either unsubstantial or obviously based on press releases; PR is rarely reliable, and it's never a basis of notability. Finally, WP:CORPDEPTH is wholly lacking when only reliable sources are considered. JFHJr () 17:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:03, 28 November 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.