Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not a Number 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 of the debate was delete (~5 keep, ~13 delete). — FireFox • T [21:23, 6 April 2006]

[edit] Not a Number Technologies

Blender (software) is notable, the defunct company that made an early version is not The company name returns 396 google hits and seems to fail WP:CORP also. JoshuaZ 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it was once notable, since it once was the company that distributed Blender. Many companies that were once notable have articles (ex. Macromedia, which is now part of Adobe and thus no longer exists). Where ^(talk) 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Blender isn't quite Adobe. Delete as NN. RGTraynor 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, if their only reason for notability is one piece of software, then perhaps merge any of this info to the software's page? --Deville (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or merge the article into Ton Roosendaal --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge If all they were notable for was a notable software they should be there, not have a separate article that has no hope of being significantly expanded. JoshuaZ 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:39

• Comment Er... um... the Pokemon test isn't a real test, and in any event, if we went by that test seriously then it would probably be more inclusive than even the most extreme inclusionists. The relevant test is WP:CORP and this doesn't meet it. JoshuaZ 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable corporation. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. Funnybunny 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• I know this is somewhat unorthodox thinking, but bare with me. When we have a band that's a one-hit wonder, WP:BAND says that not only is the song notable, but the band is now notable as well, even if they were to never release another song in their entire career. Along the same lines, I think a company that releases notable software, even if they only last 4 years before bankruptcy (like NaN), is similarly notable. Therefore, I say keep. (However, if consensus becomes to delete, I recommend the merge and redirect be to Ton Roosendaal, as it makes more sense to mention NaN in that intro paragraph than in Blender's.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the Ton Roosendaal article is one line, so a merge/redirect wouldn't do any more than a page move. Not to mention, the article has little potential to be expanded. We'd all agree that the Baha Men, a one-hit wonder band that comes to mind, were a little more significant than a startup/bankrupt company. --Jay(Reply) 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. Ifnord 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, as per Ifnord.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Eusebeus 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting point about bands - but quite a different market. Marcus22 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as above. For great justice. 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a graveyard of dead dotcoms. They might even outnumber Pokémons. Sandstein 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Blender (software). -- JLaTondre 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation perBrian G. Crawford. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to either Blender (software) or Ton Roosendaal. - Drahcir 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once notable always notable. Wiki is not paper. Jcuk 15:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blender (software). The article has no merit on its own. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 23:47 (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.