Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Images (2nd nomination)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Third nomination. Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:RS to indicate any notable awards or work. It was kept in 2006 under N:CORP, which changed last year, and it no longer satisfies. Furthermore, the site linked throughout this pages history now redirects to a vendor of lenticular prints: http://www.dynamicimages.com --Theredproject (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Judging from Wayback, the company/site became inactive in mid-2007, until about 4 years ago when the site address taken on by Travel Tags Inc. That would not in itself be a factor indicating deletion, but does put beyond access sources considered into the 2006 AfD discussion. While noting opinion in that AfD such as "Highly notable and innovative media company", searches on various terms are not finding verifying references. That leaves the two offline references but it is unclear to what extent these considered the company or a piece of campaign work in which they were involved: it seems likely that these would fall short of the current WP:NCORP requirements, and searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2019 (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.