Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quayeyeware

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. JForget 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quayeyeware[edit]

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

I was not able to find evidence that this company meets the notability criteria. Can anyone else do better? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any sources which would establish the notability of this company per WP:GNG. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't really explain what this organisation is, much less provide any evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This survived a speedy deletion notice under A1, but could easily come under G11 or A7. StAnselm (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When an article's entire text is an attempt to construct an argument for notability rather than about the business itself, it's not a good sign: Quayeyeware attends many trade shows and has been noted in many online magazines, stores and blogs... And I still have no more idea about what this business makes or does as I have about how to pronounce the name. (Not much.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy: Quay-eyeware. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails our GNG, probably meets our definitions for speedy deletion though. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2010 (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.