Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Computing

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Computing

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

Delete. Non-notable defunct company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Links already in the article that establish notability: Theregister.co.uk article, Another Theregister.co.uk article. Did the nominator check the references already in the article? Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Regardless of whether sources might exist that could potentially establish notability, the information-free description of this business is unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: ...provides "unified computing infrastructure for the dynamic data center". The company claimed LiquidIQ and Liquid Elements unified computing solutions drove down the time and costs of managing IT infrastructure through unified software-based control of servers, storage, and networking resources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pter Ihcoyc. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. The article is clearly notable by sources already found. If you have a problem with the tone or any of the content, then discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 04:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CORP. sufficient coverage in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 21 September 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.