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 keep. John254 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geosign[edit]

Geosign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Only has two references, both dating to its creation; any company gets that press, and none has been seen since. The page has functioned mostly as an advertising platform for the websites this company owns. Its own website seems to be gone. Tb (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Company doesn't seem to have been particularly notable during its existence, and seems to have gone under beginning sometime last year (sorta confirmed by Alexa). --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability does not expire. If the company was notable a year ago, it is notable today. I added some newspaper articles as references which offer a clearer idea about what happened to the company. But any company which has $160 million invested in it is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's true that "notability does not expire". It was, it seems to me, a flash in the pan. Even the new references show that it was notable a year ago, and now it's all but closed up shop. Even its own website is broken. I'm happy you found some more references--those are only helpful--but they seem to cement the case in my opinion. The company wasn't particularly notable to begin with, and now it's essentially dead. Notability consisted of two things: it was founded, and it died. Tb (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been brought up to weak keep. I don't know that other sources will ever appear, but this is just enough to show that it was briefly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 3 April 2008 (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.