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. Secret ^account 16:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, WP:Conflict of interest, borderline WP:SPAM. Previous proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is promotional and there is no indication of notability. Haakon (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as unnotable company (with 1 employee. . .) Galloping Moses (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am reminded of an old saying about too many chiefs and not enough Indians... I know that modern technology replaces many workers, but only having one employee is a bit too far for notability. Peridon (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7. No sources. No credible assertion of notability. Based on it's founding of just three weeks ago, I doubt it's had the time to become notable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2009 (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.