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.