Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty-First Century Medicine

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Twenty-First Century Medicine[edit]

Vanity. Information that could be rolled into some other main topic on cryonics. --Froggy 22:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There are plenty of company stubs that are short as this one is. Without looking deeply into the site, it seems that the company has been around for 5 years or more and has a reasonably well developed web presence that suits a company that's not fly-by-night ... but that could be an illusion, of course. I've left the 'delete' tag on, of course, but done a categorization of the article and added a stub-tag. Courtland 02:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. There are too many companies around and most of them aren't notable. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Radiant! 10:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. This company is not notable enough to warrant its own encyclopedia entry. IBM, Sure. But not this. Katefan0 21:23, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Megan1967 08:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds interesting. Capitalistroadster 15:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 20:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Radiant. Carrp | Talk 04:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regretful Delete Nothing to distinguish from other corpsicle companies. Rich Farmbrough 17:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.