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 all. Merging Visual DNA to Imagini is at editor's discretion and can be considered later. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable company, references are trivial, unreliable or not independent sources, prod contested by referring to BBC reference, which doesn't mention the company. Somno (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Visual DNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alex Willcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Weak delete If Youniverse is a product of this company (as the BBC link discusses), Imagini may be a little notable. However, the speedy deletion of this product suggests it may not be notable: [1] It appears as if the article's creator has a possible connection to these products that are under AfD. The BBC link doesn't mention the company as nominator notes. Artene50 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the lot into one article, poss the Imagini one, mainly because of the bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk references. I can't see enough WP:RS to warrant 3 separate articles.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Wall Street Journal reference is substantial, reliable and independent. The BBC link mentions Youniverse, a product of the company, and is therefore acceptable. PC World and the Guardian are also reliable sources. And the deleted article for Youniverse could legitimately be restored or recreated with the references cited in this article. --Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am impressed by the new references; if they were there beforehand I wouldn't have nominated the article. Unfortunately, my quick Google search didn't bring them up. Somno (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think its quite possible that there is sufficient conetnt for all 3 articles, per Eastmain. DGG (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep article about founder and company. Pretty obvious given numerous instances of substantial coverage in major publications, and company is not the same subject as its founder (who has other accomplishments not related to this company). VisualDNA may be mergeable into the parent article because it seems to be more or less synonomous with (or at least a key part of) the company's offerings. It is notable too but not as a separate thing. Any merge there would be for organizational reasons, and without prejudice to a new article if the subject / article gets larger and it no longer makes sense to organize them in one place. Wikidemo (talk) 23:11, 31 July 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.