Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catabatic Automation Technology

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. WjBscribe 03:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catabatic Automation Technology[edit]

nn company Sooonu 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This company is not notable. The creator of the article (who also rm the prod and contested the speedy) is employed by the company, violating WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO UnitedStatesian 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep+ Comment: There is no guideline about what makes a company notable and what "references" can be treated as "reliable sources" about a company which is not publically traded. Additionally non-publically traded companies can be on the wikipedia. Please help me find these details on wiki, I'll try my best to fulfill the requirements, alternatively, please remove the deletion request. I apologize again for removing the prod request earlier. This was my first article and the message on the article said that I should remove the request and start a discussion page. Thats what I did. I under stand now that as the creator of the article I should not have done that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amitsoni9999 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very week keep, if there are Indian references, then it would be notable in India, which would be sufficient. The bulk of the article is advertising , but i just removed most of it. DGG 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ghits become Results 21 - 26 of 26 for "Catabatic Automation Technology". (0.08 seconds) when you lose the similar. almost everything found is the company's active search for notability for it's self. Fails WP:N signed Jeepday 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N criteria - despite having had plenty of time to do so. It would need to have a major rewrite - with external references for me to consider changing my point of view.--VS ^talk 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability very weak and parts read like spam. --St.daniel 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not expressed in the article. ~Step trip 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a company. <.< Of no particular note or accompishment, Ghits is a bust. Not even press releases. Now this technology they're in partnership about, the websearching thing, THAT might merit a small article (if it could be sourced and fleshed out... But I'm afraid the company would still only merit a footnote in the technology's article. Technology is relevant to people's lives (ergo, to the audience/readers). The companies that provide it, unless they're innovating their little butts off... not so much. Wysdom 04:09, 16 April 2007 (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.