- 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged PROD: "This article has had an advert tag for more than a month; yet nobody has tried to make it sound more encyclopedic, or added any indication that the company satisfies the WP:CORP guidelines. This imples that it is probably not notable.", however on reading it quickly and on reading the talk page, a reasonable case is present that this doesn't warrant summary deletion. AfD can work its magic instead; those advocating cleanup might make a little bit of effort given the PRODding... -Splashtalk 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I spent some time trying to find something that would meet WP:CORP. Unfortunately I didn't turn up anything. All the press coverage linked from their site are either press releases or articles written by RAD staff. Google didn't find anything significant either. Unless someone can turn up evidence of notability, I agree this should go. Gwernol 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per prod (my own). Henning Makholm 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revenue of a billion dollars?. Keep. Fagstein 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment its a revenue range of $100m-$1b. Even so, I don't see revenue as one of the WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. Gwernol 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! — FireFox • T [11:09, 12 April 2006]
- Delete per WP:CORP Computerjoe's talk 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 100m-1b in revenue, lots of installed bases. Varifiability may be difficult though.Just another star in the night T | @ | C 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a copyright violation. See the first edit and this. -- Kjkolb 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --- 'THIS IS ABSURD, Omnilogic never owned the copyright on that text, but RAD owns it!! (www.rad.com)'[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.