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. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. You just threw a few jargon terms together without explaining how they apply. - Mgm|(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no third party evidence that the company is notable. There are only links to press releases, and a google search just shows more press releases. The article serves as an advertisement for a company--it's not an encyclopedic article of general interest. It's an orphan in the sense that no one links to it. All of these issues were brought up in March 2008. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent refs to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no obvious advertising language and there are references available contrary to what Aymatth2 says in his comment. - Mgm|(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is an advertisement for a company. The references are all to press releases from the company--no third party evidence of notability. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless someone can find a non-trivial third-party source. --Delirium (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this suggests there is such coverage (I hope the URL works for you: "Synamed" on Google News, Archives: All dates selected). Drmies (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With all respect, Drmies, that link just leads me to believe that they have a PR department that regularly issues press releases. Unschool 06:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm--OK, after looking at all the entries (I only glanced at the list before), I see your point. The only thing that stands up, as far as I can tell, is this award. Mind you, I wasn't going to vote 'keep' based on that search alone. Thanks for checking, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found it useful to re-read WP:CORP. Press releases, even those reprinted in other sources, don't establish notability. I wonder if the TETHIC award is notable? Careful Cowboy (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cowboy, don't get me wrong: I am a cynic and never believe press releases. I just wasn't prepared for this search to give me nothing but press releases: I thought there was some wheat among the chaff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article not only fails to meet WP:N, it really doesn't even try. The closest thing is a vague reference to "esttablishing a national presence". But the story here is their software, and their software is apparently only for use in-house, so it just doesn't affect anyone else. Maybe there's more to it than that, but you can't guess that from the article as currently written. Unschool 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability cannot be established through reliable secondary sources; that is, press releases cannot solely establish notability of a company per WP:SPS. MuZemike (talk) 19:43, 31 December 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.