Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artesia Digital Media Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Open Text Corporation. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 06:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Artesia Digital Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for deletion for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Open Text Corporation The firm was independent from 1999-2004 and has been a subsiduary of Open Text for the longer period since. Its website redirects to OpenText's, and subsequent press coverage is of "Open Text's Artesia DAM". AllyD (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the reasoning of AllyD. Mark viking (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Open Text Corporation per above - sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability as an entity independent of Open Text.Dialectric (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (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.