Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Infotech

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. L Faraone 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Infotech

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somewhat promotional article for company of very borderline notability. I think the refs are not substantial or independent enough to show notability by our usual standards, and the article is somewhat exaggerated in its claims of importance from the numbers of people who use sites to which it has some very indirect connection.Previous versions were speedied as A7,but they provided much less information; I think the best course will be a community decision here. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems that their former company is clearly NOTEable, but it's not clear whether or not this company is. That said, I think it deserves some GF effort on the parts of editors to find more material, as I suspect that this will not be difficult to come by. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to come up with any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Google News Archive finds mostly press releases and occasional mentions; the only in-depth thing I found was this interview with the founder/CEO at a Wall Street Journal-related site, and that by itself is not enough to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Del.' This news about the delay (cancellation?) of their IPO is more suitable for inclusion than the corporate pre-history, but I need a little more to justify a keep vote. Kilopi (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2013 (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.