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. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Intent, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Speedy deleted for a second time due to having no clear notability. Disputed by original editor, so going to AfD for further input. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without the pov stuff it is WP:CSD#A7, but giving the editor a week to improve it is not going to hurt anything. ZabMilenko 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just to establish a precedent against re-creation. Non-consumer business with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Such a precedent would be a shame. Nothing should prevent the company from becoming notable on its own. If a future AFD needed to reference this the argument would indeed be a weak one. ZabMilenko 01:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The company has created automated design verification software. This is not something that maintream press will cover. Trade magazines have covered this company, primarily the EE Times. [1], [2], [3] and [4] is a sample of the news coverage fished out from a sea of press releases in a Google News search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - two of the hits above are press releases, and the remaining two do not constitute "significant coverage". I'm not saying this company can't be notable in the future; just that it isn't now.  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, a couple of the sources could be interpreted as regurgitated press releases. But I don't see how you can say that the article coverage is not significant when the first article is specifically about the company, as in it is the primary subject of the coverage, and runs for 12 paragraphs. And the second article is an interview, so again, it is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - both are written by the same person, three months apart, in the same "magazine". That doesn't constitute "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as specified in WP:CORP.  Frank  |  talk  19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My apologies. I think I've misinterpreted your statement. I was referring to the very specific articles being more than mere mentions whereas you were looking at the coverage overall. I do agree that the overall coverage coming only from a single magazine is problematic. That's why my I've made my keep a weak one. I think it's enough to get by for notability, but it's arguable, and I can see why one would favour a deletion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - that's what discussion is all about.

• Disclosure - I deleted this article under WP:CSD#A7 moments after its first creation.  Frank  |  talk  02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:41, 29 May 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.