Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auspex, Inc.

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. Even if we don't apply WP:CSD#A7 here, it seems like notability is not met going by Djm-leighpark's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auspex, Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Entirely unsourced article about a non-notable company. Not to be confused with multiple companies of the same name. Not comfortable with speedy deletion because this article dates back to 11 year old spam (by a SPA, no less) and contains some unrelated edit history that may have relevance elsewhere. MER-C 10:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:NCORP, meets WP:CSD#A7. Age is not an exception to CSD, all of the revisions seem to be eligible for A7 as well — there is a brief mention of an artist called Auspex in older revisions, which is covered by A7 (person). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am objecting to speedy delete. I don't say at this point it should be kept but I'd like to look at it. It is currently at AfD attempts to circumvent this process are absolutely not necessary in this circumstance. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have not found sufficient online references or information that enables this company to be retained in Wikipedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2019 (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.