Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexetra

: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 Iris (software). JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

=[[Dexetra]]=

:{{la|Dexetra}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Dexetra}})

According to WP:ORG, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no secondary source that discusses Dexetra (the company) in detail, the sources are about Iris (the product, not the company). The only reference I can find which has an incidental and trivial coverage about this company is [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/166080/entrepreneurship-bug-bites-young-kerala.html this] which I believe is not sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete As the nominator. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I declined this speedy delete because of the claim to produce Iris (software) which is famous enough to be discussed om Tech Talk Radio podcast. However I have not check if there is any substantial coverage on the company. Searchers should also use local languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
keep I have added three independent references to show WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I do not think the sources are sufficient to show .notability I see the first source indicates that it received funding -- but for only $200,000. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect and possibly selective merge to Iris (software). The larger question is whether that also-ran personal assistant software for some mobile phones has the kind of significance for all the rest of human history (yes, all 10 1/2 months left of it) needed to support an encyclopedia article at this time; but that isn't the question posed here. But assuming for the moment that Iris (software) merits an article, a brief notice of the developer in its article would not be out of order. Startup announcements from "Techie Buzz" and mobile phone application trade blogs do not establish significance on their own. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (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.