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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why he doesn't consider the sources in the article and found by the Google News archive search linked above are insufficient, rather than just say "just not notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does appear to be significant news coverage about the company; see for example this from the New York Times. Google News Archive finds 8 pages of hits. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are two news references to it on the article, the NY Times article notes that it played a role in a notable event, as have many organisations, companies and people who are not notable enough for an article. The Dispatches article doesn't seem to mention the company by name. The other references are links to the company's own website. I don't think the company is notable. Pi(Talk to me! ) 02:26, 19 February 2011 (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.