Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Adaptive Systems Applications

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. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Adaptive Systems Applications[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company was dissolved just a year or two after Google was formed, so a Google search is not a good proxy for notability. This article should be improved to include 1 or 2 good quality secondary sources - such as IEEE journal articles. There is no DEADLINE and we can wait until an editor with access to paywalled archives and expertise in the field can improve the sourcing. Until then we don't have to doubt the integrity of the LANL as a source, despite its connection with the company. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google indexes newspapers and websites that were created before google was created if they can still be found on the internet. While there is no deadline, we shouldn't keep an article because it might fulfill the GNG. If someone has the access in the future, they can recreate this or ask for the deleted version. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched through Press Reader, PressDisplay, LexisNexis and Keesing World News Archive for information on this company and found nothing. If these search tools didn't bring anything up, then I doubt any sources actually exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article falls short of notability and there's not much coverage (probably because it only existed for 5 years). Multiple searches including News, newspapers archive, Books, browser and Scholar found nothing good aside from two links at Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small startup bought up before achieving independent notability. Skyerise (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2015 (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.