Tim Starling wrote:
That would be a cynical way of looking at it.
There's no core policy issue
at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to
public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
Indeed. And even if this particular website _does_ turn out to be not
particularly notable (I haven't done much checking myself), the proper
way to deal with that IMO would be to redirect to the article on its
parent company [[Interbrand]] and perhaps add a section on it there.
Everyone wins.