Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetworkAnatomy

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetworkAnatomy

Article created by User:NetworkAnatomy, reads like an advert, company is apparently not publicly quoted (see WP:CORP), and scores ~800 Google hits, which seem to be mostly press releases. Has been in business for a bit under 4 years, whihc is long enough for the word to spread if they are genuinely notable. I think this is vanispamcruftisement. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Anatomy (disambiguation). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• NetworkAnatomy has reponded to immediately delete the insertion of disambiguous alternatives which caused an unexpected vanity appearance. NetworkAnatomy, while starting out in 2002, went into revenue operations in 2004 after nearly two years of development. Notariety (direct interests) since 2004 have grown by 247% and continue today. We are an up and coming company with growing independent writings and evaluations on our work. We followed the standard corporate outlines already presented in Wikipedia. The compliance rules for Wikipedia are not trivial so we look forward to the support to make it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetworkAnatomy (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. Page verges on incomprehensible at points, and the subject is not notable enough to justify keeping an article about them free of advertising POV and properly written. --Last Malthusian 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Last Malthusian. Stifle 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. Suspect ulterior motive of nominator may be to use the word vanispamcruftisement. ;) Turnstep 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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.