- 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. czar 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Incedo (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)
Fails WP:ORG. All references come from the company or company-related sources. No independent deeper coverage was found. Looks like a typical PR. Note: proposed deletion by another user and speedy deletion by me were unsuccessful for uncertain reasons. (GNews used to remove PROD include only in passim mentions of the company, not even basic info.) WikiHannibal (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as searches found nothing better at all. Notifying tagger IagoQnsi. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. My searches find nothing better except more passing mentions, definitely doesn't meet notability criteria. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the subject appears to fail the relevant notability criterion. @WikiHannibal: the "unknown reason" for the contested A7 was because it was a crappy A7 nomination that shouldn't have happened. Pretty simple, really. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @VQuakr: Thanks for your thorough and civil explanation of the reasons behind an edit you did not make. Keep up the good work. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the company was previously known as "IB Technology" (until some time last year). There are plenty of hits for that name, mostly "in passing", but at least one more substantial treatment. Thparkth (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2016 (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.