Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FusionOne

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FusionOne

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

Seemingly open and shut case of no better notability and improvement and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and this simply hasn't changed or improved much since starting in June 2009. Pinging Epeefleche, RHaworth, UninvitedCompany and author GRC250. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company was sold in 2010 to Synchronoss--the article is hopelessly out of date, and may not be worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think some of the arguments forwarded above are flawed, at least as they are phrased--notability is not temporary and therefore neither the lack of new details nor the company being acquired as an asset and ceasing to operate as a recognizable independent entity are argument for deletion, if notability and other standards are initially achieved. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether the content presently int he article is substantial enough that it will benefit any future readers even to the most minimal extent necessary to justify its existence. New sourcing might remedy this issue if the company were still in operation and being covered by tech industry press, but this is not the case, and perhaps this is what the previous editors commenting here meant to address. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plain and simple, this company isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, right? Not a Who's Who of business? Chisme (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2015 (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.