Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emnico Technologies

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 keep. Courcelles 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emnico Technologies[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. a mere 3 gnews hits [1], one of these articles could be considered in depth. but there is really no other third party coverage besides local newspapers on this. it's a small company of 22 people and revenue of a mere 1,5 million GBP a year, and has existed for 4 years. nothing particularly notable about this company. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very interesting company, but the coverage is enough to establish notability. The coverage in The Times is behind a paywall, but Google News provides this snippet: "Emnico Technologies is also a model company for these creditstrapped times. It has no borrowings. Established by 13 IT specialists whose department had been ... " If The Times talks about you, you're probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

articles need coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Eastmain. This company is just bit more than those that get deleted as per WP:N. I found enough sources too --DeVerm (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. References are slim but I think they are sufficient for notability. Several Times (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (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.