Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Jump to: navigation, search

Points of interest related to Business on Wikipedia:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Please indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

[edit] Business

[edit] Seattle FilmWorks

(Find sources: "Seattle FilmWorks" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable company; all referenced sources are either a) advertisements placed by this company (6,7), amateur homepages, forum posts or blogs (1,2,9,16,21), linkfarms (19,20) or are peripheral or irrelevant to the subject. My attempt to establish notability through reliable sources about this company has failed; I checked Google web and news searches and found nothing more substantial than casual mentions in reliable sources. Prod deletion was opposed; too many 'references' for speedy. This is part of a walled garden with Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory and SFW-XL - both of which I have prodded. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, although the article needs a ton of improvement. As I recently noted on the article's Talk page, I do think that Seattle FilmWorks was a notable company, but I also agree with the nominator that this notability has not yet been well-established by what's currently in the article. The article currently contains a lot of detail in the vein of WP:NOTHOWTO but doesn't yet show how this company was covered in independent reliable sources. However, quite a bit of such coverage exists, as suggested by the search results at GNews[1] and GBooks[2]. Unfortunately, digging through this material is complicated by paywall barriers, by the precarious state of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online archives, and because many of the Ghits turn out to be actual Seattle FilmWorks advertisements (as the article mentions, their print ads used to be everywhere). The Seattle Times archives are in somewhat better shape than the P-I's, and a search there[3] also produces hundreds of articles which may be helpful in explaining this company's one-time prominence in the film world. Here, however, is one clear example of such coverage: Cynthia Flash, "Photo Processor Using Net to Enlarge Its Base; Technology: Analysts say Seattle Filmworks' offering of pictures on disk shows its savvy marketing." Associated Press in Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1997. This article describes in detail how, as of 1997, Seattle FilmWorks was "a leader in mail-order photo finishing", "the first to offer both slides and negatives off the same roll", "the first photo processor to offer pictures on computer disk", "an anomaly in the photo finishing market", etc. Ominously, though, that 1997 article also mentioned, "Digital cameras, which allow people to load photographs directly from a camera into a computer, could render Seattle Filmworks' processing obsolete." Imagine that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] La Pyramide

(Find sources: "La Pyramide" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Deprodded by claim of "hundreds of sources" but all I found was tourist-y directory listings (Fodor's and that lot). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. A restaurant with three Michelin stars is pretty obviously notable by any sensible definition of the term. The source that I added to the article is far from a "tourist-y directory listing" and those hundreds more can be found here. Just two examples from near the top of those results are a book from the Cambridge University Press confirming that this restaurant "enjoyed immense status since the early 1930s", and one from the Oxford University Press saying that "Novelle cuisine's roots are in the French town of Vienne in the 1950s and the chef Fernand Point's renowned Michelin three-starred restaurant, La Pyramide". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I sure as hell didn't find those on Google Books! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Pyramide was one of the most famous restaurants in France. (I believe I first read about it in Vincent & Mary Price's classic Treasury of Great Recipes, which sadly seems not to be searchable on-line.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tchai-Ovna

(Find sources: "Tchai-Ovna" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Sources are Yelp, TripAdvisor and other user submitted content. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Simpli Software Inc.

(Find sources: "Simpli Software Inc." – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational configuration

(Find sources: "Organizational configuration" – news · books · scholar · free images)

As 22 months ago, many issues but mostly written like an essay with sourcing, OR and POV issues. It was suggested it could be fixed but it's been barely touched since. There's already an article organizational structure on essentially the same topic without these issues. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] EDIFECS

(Find sources: "EDIFECS" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not really notable. references do not establish notability. Existing isn't enough to pass WP:CORP Dennis Brown (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mild delete - gnews hits are about 90% press releases, and most of the rest are two-to-four sentence mentions like this, but mixed in there is this more in-depth piece. Still, the article in its current state could probably get speedied as WP:PROMO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:B2B rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. a Healthcare Information Management company specilaizing in providing software for improving Healthcare efficiency by providing transactional efficiency tools for Providers and Payer organizations - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] WE'AR

(Find sources: "WE'AR" – news · books · scholar · free images)

New article with no references, no claim of notability and obvious notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - seems to have some respect in the Blog-o-sphere, but that isn't enough for the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS). I found directory listings and blog mentions (examples linked), but not RS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dion Global Solutions Limited

(Find sources: "Dion Global Solutions Limited" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Another company "offering solutions and services", via WP:B2B, refs are typical announcements but nothing that indicates actual notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Lawson Software

(Find sources: "Lawson Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable nor makes any rational claim to notability. Fails WP:CORP Refs are either dead-links or directory type listings or a regurgitated press release. Back office software house. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:B2B: the only reliable source in the article in InformationWeek's article, which speculates the future events basing off the press release. The Forbes references are not related to the software house, so they don't count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sienna Biotec

(Find sources: "Sienna Biotec" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Small Indian biochemical firm; the article previously claimed to be partnered with Siena Biotech (an Italian firm) and GlaxoSmithKline, but these claims seem to have been either misleading or entirely unsupported by the sources. The one remaining claim of involvement with a major partner is sourced to a press release from the company, which bears an astonishing similarity to this press release from the other Siena Biotech, here, with the names changed; the supposed partner, Omega, didn't issue a press release on their own site, and so I have real doubts about this claim.

If these claims are removed, we have a relatively small firm (revenues of 82M Rs. ~ 1M GPB, 1.5M USD) with no external sources provided to show its importance. The notability guidelines explicitly require significant coverage in secondary sources, and that simply isn't provided here. I've made some efforts to find any, but it's almost impossible to find anything about the firm that doesn't turn out to be discussing the Italian company. Shimgray | talk | 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I'm the one who removed the false claim. It does appear that this company is attempting to make it appear that it is more important than it is. The name similarity with a bigger company is also suspicious. I can't find any sources to show notability. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep The company looks like geographically limited to India with Name, The claim for International association with GSK is fairly possible, looking from techinical point of view, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and oncology are quite complex diseases and the possible drugs are yet not there in Market. Simillarly Gabapentin and Pregabalin looks like in the International patient list of new pharmaceuticals Drug. However more expert openion is required on this subject.Whileships savedhead (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep The article requires lot of work to meet wikipedia standards, but recent activities with Omega Pharma is contradicting, Similar name also looks like a problem. The News link [[4]] clears some confusion, however I am giving it benefit of doubt, not very sure, I have added the same reference to the article main space.X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- That press release (issued by the company) is an almost verbatim copy of this press release (PDF), with the partner changed to Omega and the quote sourced to someone at Sienna Biotec India - it still refers to "Verona", even! It's either a deliberate attempt to mislead, or an incredibly improbable coincidence. Note that Omega, the claimed partner, has not issued any such release. Shimgray | talk | 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sensory, Inc.

(Find sources: "Sensory, Inc." – news · books · scholar · free images)

speedy deleted 4x. Delete and salt. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: If already speedy deleted, then simply nominate it under CSD G4. I've taken the liberty to do so.--Ctoshw (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe a previous speedy does not qualify as a discussion which would give rationalle for g4. In addition, a speedy delete does not prevent recreation, as they can just create it again. Im hoping for something more binding via this discussion. I will revert your speedy so the discussion can continue and an admin can take binding action. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the user's talk page, another post for soapboxing, advertising or promotion by the user will result in a blocking. A speedy deletion nomination doesn't hold any less power to prevent the user from reposting. However, it WILL get the article off wikipedia faster.--Ctoshw (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- I put the warning there just a few min ago. indeed the g4 criteria specifically excludes previous speedies. So If you wish to nominate via a7/g11 I think you can, but I think there is no harm in letting it sit for a while while the discussion plays out so it can be a binding decision or salted. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Response/Questions: -- Disclosure: I’m the article creator ~ Octavius SV

After the article was originally posted it was recommended for speedy delete citing G11. After that I changed the article content to be much more neutral and add couple references.

After those changes it was next speedy delete citing A7. After that I made further edits and linked to other Wikipedia articles/entries/page to demonstrate its importance and relevance to the topics, specifically speech recognition and speech synthesis.

Forgive me I haven’t entered a new article before I have limited Wikipedia editing experience. I’m trying to write a legitimate article of a company that as some major significances and importance within speech recognition and speech synthesis fields.

Sensory, Inc is mentioned on several other Wikipedia entries, Forrest Mozer, Texas Instruments, ESS Technology.

Furthermore Forrest Mozer is one of the founders of Sensory, Inc. He is one of the foremost experts in the speech recognition and speech synthesis fields hold 17 patents in the field. Given that and Sensory, Inc pervasiveness in the speech recognition and speech synthesis I think that makes Sensory, Inc. relevant and important to the speech recognition and speech synthesis topics and overall. Especially now consider this field and industry is getting so much attention with the popularity of consumer voice control technologies like SIRI.

Moreover, I’m confused as to there are thousands of companies with Wikipedia entries/pages/article. What makes it Sensory, Inc entry so appalling that it needs to be deleted?

Again, I’m trying to create a neutral entry about Sensory that has relevant and important, especially to the speech recognition and speech synthesis topics.

I’m open to feedback, suggestion and help to make it a worth entry. What’s the best way to make it important (non-A7) with having too much hyperbole then falling into being too much like advertising/promotion (G11)? ~ Octavius SV (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

reply on your talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not entirely unreasonable; if a software product or business goes back to the 8-bit era it stands a better chance of being historically significant; snd I'm also willing to accept informal sources that were considered as reliable as it gets back then. I definitely don't like the first sentence; it needs to be a lot more informative and specific. Has the Commodore Zone been treated as a reliable source before? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Four Corners Books

(Find sources: "Four Corners Books" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP. Also no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It's lovely that they support charities, but there's no reliable and independent coverage to show they pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable charity with no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Google News sources show them mentioned repeatedly in non-PR reliable sources, although the triviality of the mentions should be evaluated. The above !voters don't appear to have evaluated the available sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sources above are "Have Kids, Will Travel Tips for stress-free family getaways" with one sentence, E-flux has one sentence, Frieze is not reliable, The Independent has one sentence, The Gazette is about a different bookstore that was named this earlier, and The Telegraph is two sentences. I don't see why you said keep. SL93 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] SOGWAP

(Find sources: "SOGWAP" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. This business failed to impact the history of computing in substantial way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Softworks Limited

(Find sources: "Softworks Limited" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence of significant coverage, and only reference given was the company home page in the original article creation. --Closeapple (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep - I can find one third party reference to one of the company's products. I think this is another one that the WP:WHACAMOLE players are going to bang their WP:RS hammers with, whereas there's probably decades old paper based sources that nobody can find anymore. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The news article you added doesn't appear to discuss Softworks Limited. It appears to be on the development of Linux. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The article contains a paragraph starting "VBVM—A Visual Basic 5 Virtual Machine: This product from Softworks Limited is a portable version of the MS Visual Basic 5 virtual machine." --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. It does appear there is a two sentence mention in paragraph 9, but that really isn't significant coverage. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks promising though. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Delphix

(Find sources: "Delphix" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability. Blogs and press releases. Somehow, this looks very familiar. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Promotional tone ("provides ... solutions"); no independent reliable sources.AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
extremely weak keep Im generally a deletionist, but this does have the zdnet and venturebeat refs, minimally qualifies as notable imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed those as well, but it was in ZDNet's blog area, written by someone who works at Interarbor Solutions rather than a journalist/editor. I guess I'm not as sold on Venture Beat's article (or site). That isn't an article it is just a mention in a paragraph, which (imo) falls short of significant coverage, with no editorial content whatsoever. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  - the red orbit one is decent, not sure if the source qualifies or not though. In any case, I would not put up a fight if it goes away, just thought it deserved a mention in the discussion at least. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak Delete Reminds me of quite a few promotional articles we see, albeit with brief mentions in a few reliable sources. Still not quite enough there in what I could find. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. For businesses, notability is not about counting press mentions, nor could it be, given the existence of publicity firms whose task is to get a business noticed, and sometimes succeed. Instead, it's about having significant effects on history, technology, or culture that give an individual firm lasting significance in the development of its trade. I don't see that here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Uniblue Systems Limited

(Find sources: "Uniblue Systems Limited" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Previous page Uniblue was speedy deleted as g11/a7. Meat/sock puppet recreated under this new name. Is borderline notable and borderline advert. Rather than just re-speedy, I thought I would nominate and get consensus. Related meat/sock puppets have created pages for all of the products by this company, which lends weight to the advert ruling imo, but I will abide with consensus of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY § g11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I took time to port references to WP:CS2 format (for ease of fact-checking) and performed actual fact-checking (the results can be seen in this revision). I found no reference to establish company's global notability and long-term impact on world's or at least some industry's history. I would also note, that the article, which was written two days ago, multiple times claims that Uniblue Systems Limited is Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, but in fact the company is not listed as such. Overall— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Software

(Find sources: "Sesame Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:B2B. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] World Research Group

(Find sources: "World Research Group" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unreferenced article about non-notable company and no assertion of notability in the article e.g. size, turnover, clients, etc. Bob Re-born (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Some kind of business training outsourcing firm or speaker's bureau. No assertion of minimal importance in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for International Research

(Find sources: "Institute for International Research" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Corporate puff-piece written like an advert / marketing brochure with little substantiation of the company's notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete. This easily qualifies as entirely unambiguous advertising:

....provides business information solutions worldwide.
IIR offers conferences, training, event management and increasingly bespoke solutions to professionals and senior business executives.
IIR’s events are based on market research to produce insight and intelligence to reveal emerging trends, critical interest areas and opportunities to interact. Events often feature noteworthy speakers – heads of state, global CEOs, entrepreneurs, best-selling authors, trendsetters. Influential and sought-after experts ensure the the events feature authoritative information and the latest best practices.
Today in America, Front End of Innovation focuses on provoking change, exchanging best practices and defining next practices. GAIN USA has also gained a reputation for identifying the rising stars of the Alternative Investment sector...
continues to build a diverse portfolio of professional conferences, training seminars, exhibitions and custom training solutions developing flagship events...
IIR staff investigate new trends to identify the event and training needs of each market and based on this information, design program content, where corporate practitioners (almost exclusively directors Managing Director, Head of Department) are invited as speakers, seminar leaders and recognized trainers or consultants. The company relies on a network of leading industry experts ("Advisory Boards"). IIR markets the products through direct marketing (primarily postal mailings, but also fax transmissions), email and online marketing. In addition, specialist IIR consultants are used to advise individual clients (large companies) or their employees individually. Events primarily take place at five star hotels and training centers.

Given this text, no reference and no claim of significance can save this; it requires a complete do-over. I gather that what this business really does is serve as a booking company for celebrity motivational and salesmanship seminars, but the bullshit is so thick that it's hard to tell. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Speedy delete?!? Really?!?! I don't have time to dig this morning, but it's pretty clear that this roughly $1 billion company established in 1973 has a big enough web footprint that there is sourcing out there in the business press. The tone of this article is promotional, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Since this text is promotional nonsense from top to bottom, questions about whether the underlying business is big or important shouldn't even arise. Wikipedia's servers should not be misused for the purpose of circulating this stuff. Being unambiguous advertising remains grounds for speedy deletion, and this is unambiguous advertising. We'd be better off not having an article on this business than having an article with this text in the history: this is simply not an encyclopedia article. And, of course, speedy deletion is typically without prejudice to creating a real article. I don't see a whole lot of coverage about this business itself (as opposed to events it has promoted), but with this text that shouldn't even arise as a question. It might be better to not speedy delete this, but only to establish a clear precedent against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Shutts & Bowen

(Find sources: "Shutts & Bowen" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This particular article is about a single lawfirm that in my opinion does not meet the minimum standards for notability on this project. It mentions people that are apparently connected to the firm, but there's no other substance to the page that really shows it is notable. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I do not see that this firm meets any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). -- Donald Albury 13:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As the article already spells out, this is the oldest law firm in Miami and has played a significant role in the history of the area. The firm's founder represented Miami pioneers Henry Flagler and Carl G. Fisher, and created the Miami Herald (here's some obituaries from 1947[5][6]) and another early lawyer was Sherman Minton who later became a Supreme Court justice. [7] Extensive coverage shown at GNews[8] and as collected on the press page of the law firm's website[9]; while some of this is press-release puffery, there's also a substantial amount of independent coverage. A February 27, 1996 Miami Herald article is entitled "Miami's Oldest Law Firm Prospers: Shutts & Bowen has weathered good times and bad"; it's behind a paywall, but the opening paragraph mentions this is "the second article in an occasional series on long-term businesses in Miami." There's also an April 28, 2011 article in the Miami business paper Daily Business Review (published by ALM, formerly American Lawyer Media): "Oldest law firm rode wave of Miami’s growth".[10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because members are notable and did notable things does not mean the firm is in itself notable for inclusion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep--the gnews hits and the sources found by Arxiloxos make clear that this firm passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG handily. Many of the linked sources are about the law firm specifically, not merely individuals associated with it. Meelar (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The article from the Palm Beach Post looks like a run-of-the-mill press release announcing newly hired lawyers at the firm, which generally are published without substantive editing in business sections of newspapers. The page cited from Tampa Bay Magazine (Google books) is labeled "Advertorial" at the bottom of the page. The "Firm Profile" at the Martindale site is on a page that has a tab labeled "Market Your Firm" at the top. The press release from the Governor's office (which seems to have been a dead link for over a year, I had to take the Wayback Machine to 2010 to see it) only mentions that a recently appointed judge (who does not have a WP article) had once practiced with this firm. -- Donald Albury 14:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Special K Software

(Find sources: "Special K Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I don't see any notability. Prod was contested in 2010 without explanation [11], and the concern is still unaddressed. None of the "citations" (scare quotes because 3 of the 4 failed verification) mention Special K anywhere on the page. Kilopi (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this page as valuable and useful to the public looking up the origin of this company. The company is real and the general public are aware of the company through its products distributed. A Bing search for "Special K Software" returns 1,320 hits, which has to be an indicator of public interest and relevance. By including this deletion in the game-related deletion discussion, there seems to be a misapprehension that this site is for a particular game, when it is actually for the company that produces games and other software for release.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsmagic (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Arguments like it's useful and search engine hits are supposed to be avoided. They don't establish notability, which is needed in order to keep the article. If you want to keep it, it'd be best to present sources where the company is covered, separate from the company itself. (ie don't give the company's website.)
- Also, its pretty common for video game companies to be discussed in the video game section like this. I doubt there's a misconception there, and if there is, it'd be cleared up by our collective comments. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Try as I might, with a number of search variations, can't find any decent 3rd party refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] TMX Finance

(Find sources: "TMX Finance" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I'm going back and forth on this one, but the whole thing is referenced to the company's own website or its SEC filings. I tried g-news searches and got some mentions in business publications, but they're all trivial and there's nothing beyond that. I can't bring myself to believe this company is notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are here, I'll bundle

TitleMax is a subsidiary of TMX Finance, and the TitleMax article faces the same problems: sourcing to SEC publications. The remaining cites (along with all the ones I could find) cover Titlemax's bankruptcy, a WP:SINGLEEVENT Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. References in the main article are to SEC filings and to a routine notice of a bond issue. All of these are in substance self-published sources originating with the business itself. Any business involved in US securities markets in any way will have something similar, so they don't even establish minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Rouse Properties

(Find sources: "Rouse Properties" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Current references are to the company's own website. I can find a few g-news hits: one is a writeup in a reliable investment blog, but I don't think this individually asserts notability. The rest of the dozen or so g-news hits are about equally split between press releases and trivial mentions when the real subject is a mall that the subject company owns. I'm just not finding enough independent, non-trivial coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Keep, notable as a division of General Growth Properties and standalone notability of properties (e.g. Southland Center, Lansing Mall). That source asserts notability just fine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Further sources: this, this Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This business owns and manages a number of shopping malls, though of course they have to put it more grandly than that: It is amongst the largest mall owners in the United States with a geographically diversified portfolio that spans the United States. A blog (not usually a reliable source) that suggests that the business might be undervalued is not a witness to significant effects on history, technology, or culture. And, frankly, owning a number of shopping malls probably doesn't get past minimal significance either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep on the ground that an appropriate coverage of major business is notable. A business that manages a number of notable properties is, looked at rationally, somewhat likely to me more notable than they are--and it would provide a place for merging/redirecting malls it owns that aren't notable. Inherited notability has nothing to do with this--that refers to a minor derived notability, something that owns many notable things anything is not derived or subsidiary to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I have to agree with DGG; a company which owns a large number of notable malls is likely to be notable. There was a POV issue, but I've started to fix that, and will have a look for some more reliable sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found two reliable references - one from MarketWatch and once from Seeking Alpha - and added them to the article. That should more than satisfy the notability criteria. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] DST Global

(Find sources: "DST Global" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability. New company, sourced by blogs and press releases. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Another international investment firm focused solely on the Internet sector promoting itself on Wikipedia. References bear witnesses only to various investments they place, and as noted are to blogs and press releases announcing routine deals of the kind any firm of this sort will routinely make. A blacksmith does not become notable by shoeing a horse. An investment firm does not become notable by making investments. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gospo-Fella Entertainment

(Find sources: "Gospo-Fella Entertainment" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This company does not appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Only claim of notability is that its compilation CD was nominated for awards from an organization that itself doesn't appear notable. Lacks reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rhythm of Gospel Awards are notable within the gospel genre. Tyler3lizabeth

Delete per nomination, notability per guidelines not demonstrated ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, notability per guidelines not demonstrated Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] GEMS Education

(Find sources: "GEMS Education" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources, and utilizes peacock words incessantly. Also see this AfD. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the above is a valid reason for deletion at AFD. The police based reason should be around notability. I find a story in the guardian arabianbusiness.com says they are the largest provider of kindergarden education in the world - but it may be a reprinted press release . Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Stuff about their schools at time out dubai. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hoover (cyclecar)

(Find sources: "Hoover (cyclecar)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable automobile.Fails WP:N Edison (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect to cyclecar, unless anyone can find some WP:RS. I can only find one. The redirect should probably be Hoover Cyclecar I only see one. Haus^Talk 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - as an independent make and model of automotive conveyence, verifiable via a reliable source, it is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Being a brand under which someone may have built a few cars does not convey inherent notability per any guideline I am familiar with. Can you cite a particular guideline that says it does, without there being multiple reliable and independent sources having substantial coverage of the car brand? Do reliable sources exist to create more than a permanent stub or directory listing? For instance, how many of the little "cyclecars" did Mr. Hoover make and sell? Any?Edison (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- We're not talking about the brand name; we're talking about a make and model. The applicable guideline is WP:COMMONSENSE. A Chevy Camaro is notable as a Camaro; an Opel Insignia, as an Insignia, because they are independent models of automobile. The number sold does not matter - we have a reliable source that verifies that this marque constructed this model of automobile. It's the same principle as applied to aircraft through long-standing consensus; each independent type that can be verified as being independent is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable makes and models of motor vehicle are generally held (and should be held) to be notable, however obscure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Doejo

(Find sources: "Doejo" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Another privately owned digital services agency (i.e. an Internet advertising agency) advertising on Wikipedia. Offered sources are startup-related local coverage or business and trade blogs. I find nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - The article was created by an editor who also created an article about its founder, Phil Tadros, which was deleted and recreated several times. The same editor deleted a "notability" tag from the article on spurious grounds.[12] It's apparent that the editor is closely connected to the company and its founder. As for the company itself, there's only a single passing mention of it in the Proquest newspaper archive. Of the sources used in the article, most are about Tadros with just passing mentions of Doejo. The only one specifically about the company is an interview hosted on what seems to be a consulting firm's website,[13] which wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source. Based on that, the company does not appear to meet the notability guideline: WP:CORP. Will Beback talk 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - There is no evidence that this is a company with any significant notability. It's biggest claim to notability seems to be that it has worked for some notable companies. However, this does not make Doejo itself notable and, without any reliable sources, I see no scope for keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Acero

(Find sources: "Acero" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable local restaurant that was tagged and then removed from speedy deletion three years ago; there have been routine local reviews about the restaurant, but from WP: N, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The source for the removal of the speedy deletion in 2009 was a user who has subsequently been banned for sockpuppetry, and I couldn't find any recent Google News evidence of notability outside a Sauce magazine review (a local publication). poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The other AFD listing for Aceromath is not related to this Acero; the article was nominated for speedy deletion so it doesn't have an original AFD listing. My mistake. poroubalous (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, delete, delete - written like an advert with no independent sources. The article mentions one of Acero's dishes featured on the front cover of Bon Appetite. Their cauliflower ravioli dish is published in the magazine but the accompanying text pictured here does not actually mention Acero. Having a recipe published does not constitute multiple in-depth coverage. Sionk (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Entrees at Acero include Sea Scallops with a Mushroom Ragu, Porchetta with Polenta and Hormone-Free Sirloin with spinach and fennel. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pilz GmbH & Co. KG

(Find sources: "Pilz GmbH & Co. KG" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, weakly. This business's self description is that it is working in the field of safe automation technology , with complete solutions for safety and control technology, which is the patent nonsense for "we make electronic timers, sensors, and relays". This firm is apparently an old one, and might have possibly acquired some sort of long term significance in technology, history, or culture. But this text is vague PR guff, I'm not finding much that looks like substantial coverage of encyclopedia-worthy achievements in Google News (many results in German, which I don't read well, but they too look unpromising); and the current article's unhelpful PR style only hurts its case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Truveris

(Find sources: "Truveris" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable and no real asertion of notability. A few refs confirms that it exists but none give it any claim for notability. Looks like a back-office type software provider. Quite big, but size doesn't count for anything on Wikipeia Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: WP:NCORP requires secondary WP:reliable sources coverage. The Businesswire (in the article) seems to be one, another can be StartupGazette's Truveris Raises $3.8M in First Round of Venture Funding (though it seems to address the same event). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per SL93. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Businesswire regurgitates press releases. Most of StartupGazette's content is the same press release. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If a news source has things like "About company name" (this press release has it in 4 places), has mostly quotes from the company, is filled with promotional language, and has no author listed with only contact information for the company, it is a press release. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Another venture-backed, privately-held, healthcare information technology company that provides pharmacy bill review software as a service promoting itself on Wikipedia. Routine announcements that a firm has received capital do not even generate minimal significance; if they hadn't, no one would bother to spam on their behalf. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] BestPrice

(Find sources: "BestPrice" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Advertising. Spam article about a spam website. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete for lack of third-party sources; all sources are either from the company or its parent company Phaistos Networks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

BestPrice.gr is NOT a spam site and this article is by no means a spam one. If so, please elaborate. Thank you. Phaistonian (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete 100% promotional with only related links. Author looks to have a Conflict of Interest. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Phaistonian (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I fail to see "100% promotional". Sorry.

If it is your employer, that is understandable. But it won't save the article. And we don't have to convince you that it is promotional, but you have to convince us that it is not promotional. Up until now, you fail on that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Phaistonian (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, I am a related to the company (co-founder). If that makes the article promotional, so be it. All that's written are facts. If you are not familiar with the Greek market/internet and that way you call this promotional, again, so be it.

Delete. Non-notable shopping website with no independent sources. The name has been used to refer to many different things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Phaistonian (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) It's not notable because it's Greek. In Greece it's far more than notable.

Delete per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: No notability put forth even after the creator's complaining. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and is clearly WP:SPAM. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Per above, does not meet WP:CORP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: There are many Greek companies on Wikipedia, see Category:Companies_of_Greece. But they have sources that show they are notable. But this one doesn't. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Phaistonian (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Can you please point me to what source they are pointing at? Some of those articles don't even point to the company's site.

Do you really not understand that Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why isn't this a speedy delete? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- [14] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess because we are nice lads and lasses and are willing to give mr. Phaistonian a steep learning curve. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Alexander Coachbuilders

(Find sources: "Walter Alexander Coachbuilders" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No indication of WP:notability. Only source is not found. Google searches provide few hits and nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious keep. A publicly listed company with over 80 years of history, for much of it one of the largest bus manufacturers in the world as well as operating large numbers of other businesses, was always likely to have rather more coverage than this article's state would suggest. Although the vast majority of it is offline (industry sources, for instance, have written hundreds of thousands of words about this company down the years), sample sources that I can link to include: [15], [16], [17] and many more about its successors (e.g. [18], [19]). Passes WP:CORP by a massive margin - I'd be interested to see what Google searches the nominator tried... Alzarian16 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep it's frankly difficult to believe that the nominator really did hunt for sources. There are plenty of interesting immediate hits on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News (archives obviously). These include a government report on the company [20], a discussion of the company in the British Parliament [21], a paper that discusses some of the company's technologies [22], thorough coverage of the company's operations in daily news organization from the trivial [23] [24] to the more substantial [25] to the more dramatic [26]. And this is just a fraction of what I get on the first page of hits in Google Books/Scholar/News. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep As per references in the article and discussed above. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Note also existence of various "Alexander's Buses Remembered" and a forthcoming book (not one of these Wikipedia knockoffs as far as I can tell): "Alexander's Buses: Fife, Midland, Northern" (ISBN 0711035520). AllyD (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Obvious keep - a famous company with a rich history. A most strange AFD nomination IMHO. We have tens of thousands of articles on Z-list celebs, weather girls and obscure comic characters, yet a venerable and well-established company gets AFDd. Wikipedia needs to seriously re-scope if it wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep – although it could certainly use a fair bit of fleshing out, considering the topic. Useddenim (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep One of the few British bus manufacturers still in business. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SNOW Keep and a {{trout}} for the nominator, per all of the reasons above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep why would this not be notable? MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Notable predecessor company to notable successor companies. Although most ghits are not especially substantial, there are an avalanche of them, and the article's sourcing has been improved to reflect them. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient RS coverage -- where coverage is less substantial, we are allowed to consider the number of rs articles covering a subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stagecoach in Hants & Surrey

(Find sources: "Stagecoach in Hants & Surrey" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question I don't live in the UK so I wouldn't know, but what makes this article different from the articles for various tube stops or other transit lines? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer We're not talking about physical structure such as a tube stop or transit line - the article is about a minor regional subdivision of a transit company. This doesn't appear to be uniquely notable subdivision and it would be better redirecting the article to the larger regional division or simply to the Transit company its self. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that. Just becuase a tube stop has a physical structure doesn't make it more notable. Stagecoach Hants & Surrey run a lot of bus routes and carry millions of passengers a year - certainally more than the passenger throughput at an average tube station. Nevertheless, I still think at the moment we should merge to Stagecoach South. Arriva436/talk/contribs 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The merge rationale isn't that it isn't noteable nor that is less noteable than physical structures. The rationale that specifically applies to corporations is that subsections of a company which aren't unique enough to have their own article should be covered in the parent article as part of general coverage As for why I didn't do this boldly, there has been over the past year little consensus for changes to Bus articles so rather than redirect, be reverted, then bring here I thought I'd just bring it here first and get community consensus. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Stagecoach South. A few independent reliable sources talk about this subdivision, but there's not very much material to write about so it's easy enough to cover it as part of the larger division. Stagecoach South East already uses the format. In fact this could probably have been done boldly without needing an AfD, but never mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Stagecoach South, as per Alzarian. Not sure why the AfD either to be honest. Arriva436/talk/contribs 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stagecoach in the South Downs

(Find sources: "Stagecoach in the South Downs" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Stagecoach South. Independent reliable sources do talk about this subdivision and it probably passes the letter of WP:CORP, but there's not very much material to write about so it's easy enough to cover it as part of the larger division. Stagecoach South East already uses the format for all but the most notable subdivision. In fact this could probably have been done boldly without needing an AfD, but never mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stagecoach in Hampshire

(Find sources: "Stagecoach in Hampshire" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Free Independent Traveler

(Find sources: "Free Independent Traveler" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The article has existed for close to three years with only one attempt at a citation (that link is now dead). A Google search for "Free Independent Traveler" initially yields either Wikipedia pages or what I'll call "Fakepedia" pages (i.e. sites that simply copy Wikipedia pages). A bit more digging offers a few other links mentioning the phenomenon, but one of the links (from acronymfinder.com) notes that "This definition appears very rarely" for the relevant acronym.

There have been some attempts by governments to attract the sort of business that this article describes, but the term does to appear (particularly in a capitalized state) to be in more than passing use in most cases, and as far as I can tell there is no movement to self-identify with the term.

In short, as it is written now the article does not seem to refer to a significant phenomenon. The article has had approximately 30 months for improvement, and as such I believe that it is a good candidate for pruning. Tyrenon (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mailstorage

(Find sources: "Mailstorage" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This sounds too much as if it was covered already. At least it should be merged to self storage. It also sounds very speculative of the future of the subject.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete (or Merge) as above, self storage seems enough coverage on this very dull subject. Perhaps Mailstorage is basically a (sourced) joke? (Can we get away with a real dullard parody of an article?) Anyway, no need for yet another article on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As a free encyclopedia, it may be that some people will actually find this useful. Just because some may find it 'dull', doesn't mean that some may not find it useful. It is a new industry just as car sharing was a new industry (different to car rental) and both have their own Wikipedia pages - not sure how this is different... As it is different to self storage, would be better to delete it rather than merge if people feel it is too 'dull' for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.163.17 (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whether the information is useful or not doesn't factor into the debate over whether it should be included in the encyclopedia. The critical factor is whether the subject is notable. In this case, the subject might be too new a concept to have the sources we'd need to keep it - which just means that an article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge into self storage or just move to storage by mail. I'm not convinced that enough sources exist to render this particular topic notable on its own and it's especially clear that the term "mailstorage" isn't a common way to refer to the concept in English. §everal⇒|Times 15:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep merging in the contents from Personal Self Storage . This seems a distinct topic from self-storage in general, with just about sufficient references. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article as it stands cannot stay in terms of its tone and formatting. Not a common name for the topic.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, maybe rename to Mail storage. Topic just meets WP:GNG:

Palmer, Shelly (March 31, 2011). "Storing Your Stuff by Mail". Fox News, New York. http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/storing-your-stuff-by-mail-20110331. Retrieved February 04, 2012.
Chicago Sun-Times. "Naperville-based Storage Firm Thinks Outside the Box". Chicago Sun-Times. http://www.suntimes.com/technology/guy/2743384,CST-NWS-ECOL25.article.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep NorthAmerica1000 has found coverage providing this topic is notable and well covered. Dream Focus 11:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep This article is now well documented and shown to be notable. Although apparently not considered for AfD discussions, users may well find this article to be useful. The rename suggestions should be seriously considered once the AfD is resolved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge: No matter the outcome of the AfD, fixes are needed. At the very least, this article and Personal Self Storage need to be combined. As to whether Self storage should be an ultimate merger target of all three articles, I am leaning to yes. At first glance, "mailstorage" sounds like a baloney term. It has no authentic English hits on google news, google news archive, and google books. I also can't ignore that this article was created by a new account, which also has created one other questionable article related to a [27] apparent small niche business venture. The concept of storing stuff by mail, however, clearly exists based on NA1000's research, and would merit some mention in the self storage article. Lastly, people need to throw or give more stuff away.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Renamed article to Mail storage (grammar correction). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Myhomepage

(Find sources: "Myhomepage" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable website; 16,000 on Alexa Ranking of sites. No reliable sources to corroborate content. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can't see any WP:IRS and the article seem to rely heavily on Facebook sources. Sionk (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] LSTI

(Find sources: "LSTI" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The LSTI was setup up among industry partners to promote the LTE standard. Started in 2007, it concluded in 2011 and closed its website.([28]) There has never been enough notability to warrant its own article, and merging into the LTE article would introduce undue weight in that (still quite poor) article. Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Just noticing an obvious COI. Makes me wonder why the article hasn't been deleted earlier. Nageh (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Grasshopper (company)

(Find sources: "Grasshopper (company)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. I've already removed a section that was pure advertisement. This company fails guidelines set at WP:ORG OSU1980 13:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The Boston Globe coverage and the Wall Street Journal blog entry, together with the television segment, seem sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This is a phone answering service business, one of many such businesses. They got a story in the Wall Street Journal about a promotional stunt involving chocolate covered grasshoppers. They got their startup covered in the Boston Globe, which is their local paper. I don't see either of these things as being the significant effects on history, culture, or technology that would turn this business into an encyclopedia subject. This article also appears to be only about the phone service, and the promoters apparently operate several separate businesses under the Grasshopper brand. We certainly don't need separate articles about each of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Coverage by the Boston Globe and elsewhere show notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sal's Pizza (Dallas)

(Find sources: "Sal's Pizza (Dallas)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable local restaurant. Only sources appear to be Dallas-area news outlets, with one mention being a rather trivial listing of restaurants in the entire metro area. I counted several pizza places in that list, with just two or three brief sentences devoted to the subject of the article. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Best of mention is not a trival listing; despite the whimsical naming scheme, those are annual roundups of the best local establishments. Yes, the sources are Dallas-area, which means they serve 2+ million people. D Magazine - Is Dallas not notable? Sal's has won recognition from two independent, credible news sources. In combination with the restaurant's longevity, that should be enough to establish notability. The Sal's Pizza (New England chain) article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%27s_Pizza_(New_England_chain) has been online since 2008, and lists no awards. Sal's Pizza, in Dallas, has been around since 1982 and has won several awards. If you delete Sal's, by these standards, Restaurants_in_Dallas,_Texas is going to start being a very small category! D Magazine and Dallas Observer are verifiable, reliable, independent. No original research is required to furnish why the restaurant is notable; those sources have noted it. Awards and positive reviews are the baseline of significant coverage for a restaurant, are they not? Merely because no citations have been provided for non-Dallas news sources does not mean they do not exist, or could not in the future. Pawsplay (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG, per significant coverage in:

"Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn 2003", Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-03.
Faries, Dave (January 4 2010). "How 'Bout Them Knockers: Sal's Pizza". The Dallas Observer. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/2010/01/how_bout_them_knockers_sals_pi.php. Retrieved February 03, 2012.

Also, here's a short article:

"Best Cheap Italian Food 2003", Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-04.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Only local news. SL93 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - How does this make the topic non-notable? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Despite claims to the contrary, the chain does not meet the standard. The First two are local reviews, which fall under the "regular coverage" clause of the notability guidelines. Additionally, it is clearly stated that best of lists and the like are not considered valid sources when establishing notability, so that knocks out the last. Notability has not been established. Pawsplay's, the author of the article, claim about the article on Sal's Pizza in Boston still being around is no more than WP:Other stuff exists. The sources provided are ineffectual in establishing notability because the author made the mistake of confusing actual coverage with trivial mention, which is at the root of the issue. Notability requires quantitative coverage as opposed to trivial coverage which only establishes verifiability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Could you please be more specific about what you have stated as the "regular coverage clause" in WP:GNG? There is no such clause of GNG that is written this way. Did you make this up?! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Reply - Regular coverage such as police blotters, local business openings and reviews which are part of everyday coverage are not considered eligible for establishing notability. This is otherwise known as significant coverage. You are confusing simple, everyday coverage as opposed to significant coverage. Just because there is mention or a review does not establish notability; there must be significant coverage about the subject. The pieces cited show nothing except what they serves and that the reviewer liked/disliked it. To properly establish notability, we must ask ourselves what is it that makes the company notable? Is it a fast growing chain that the industry is paying attention to? Has it contributed to the local economy in some meaningful way? Does it have some social impact on the community that gives it notice? What in these sources actually makes the company notable? Having a good tasting pizza is not notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Audience section of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies looks for "at least one regional, national, or international source." I'm completely unfamiliar with the publications being used for sourcing here. If it can be demonstrated that they constitute "regional" coverage -- that is, that their readership, both online and offline, extends beyond Dallas -- then I think this clears the notability hurdle by a millimeter or two :). I'll see if I can determine this myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Both D Magazine and the Dallas Observer are themselves notable; you could familiarize yourself reasily simply by reading their Wikipedia pages. :) Pawsplay (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I recognize that. Indeed, I used our article on the Dallas Observer to conclude that, while the publication is notable, it is not a regional publication. That the publication is notable does not necessitate that everything it writes about is, too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are not merely "reviews" or trivial mentions, those are awards. D Magazine serves the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, which as noted in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth encompasses 12 counties. D Magazine is a glossy monthly magazine. You want to call The New Yorker a local magazine? It seems to me the primary criticisms of the sources are people who are not familar with D/FW. Sal's has won awards from two different news sources that serve more than two million people, not counting people outside the metroplex who take the magazine. It's not called Big D for nothing. I don't even understand the objection itself; Sal's a neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards. Among Dallas restaurants, Sal's is notable; that seems sufficient. The underlying argument seems to be that Dallas restaurants are not notable. Pawsplay (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The New Yorker's readership extends way beyond the NY metro area. I bet its print edition is stocked in Beijing airports. Somehow I doubt D Magazine, the "Dallas Guide to Restaurants, Nightlife, and Things to Do" is getting international distribution, or even distribution outside of DFW. That's not a valid comparison. And we look for notability that is beyond mere local notability. That is part of a guideline. A neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards can't be presumed to have notability beyond its local city in the absence of sourcing that confirms this. And the D Magazine bit is a trivial mention. Sal's Pizza is presented as one of eight top restaurants in one of six neighborhoods (Oak Lawn) in one of Dallas' five areas (Central). I'm not going to take the time to count every restaurant in the D Magazine list, but there appear to be in excess of 150, in which Sal's gets a 3 sentence bullet point. So...I'm sorry, that's an extremely trivial mention. There's no way that source can be used to establish notability. This leaves us with the Observer source, which is demonstrably local. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just wanted to note that the restaurant seems to receive strong and not-just-mentions local coverage.[29]. Perhaps someone will tell me why that's not sufficient, I recall debates about such things before, but currently no delete !votes really do that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Restaurants are notable if various large circulated newspapers and magazines cover them, regardless of them being local coverage or not. It meets WP:GNG Dream Focus 16:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(Weak) keep (whatever that means). Individual restaurants, that's always a tricky matter. In this case, the article (now) comes with some local, verifiable, and reliable sources which, in my mind, make it cross the GNG threshold, even if barely. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just about any popular local restaurant is going to get some local coverage and when that restaurant is local to a major metropolitan area then it will likely get even more coverage and it will more likely be in major new sources. This to me amounts to WP:ROUTINE and is not indicative of significant notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Small town papers cover everything in town. That's routine coverage. A large city on the other hand does not cover every single restaurant. Positive reviews from multiple reliable sources make it notable. Dallas has 1,197,816 in the city, with 6,371,773 in its metropolitan area. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Since most of the news sources are behind a paywall I cannot say for certain what each one is about, but several from the snippets provided in the search results explicitly fit the definition of routine coverage or trivial mentions. That the only mentions are from Dallas news sources says it all. Were it actually notable I would expect some news coverage from outside the Dallas area. Certainly I would expect there to be a whole news article, not a review, dedicated to discussing the restaurant as a major eating establishment in the area. Really, I would prefer some significant mentions in a paper based well outside the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. I can't even find mentions from Fort Worth-area news outlets.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete because I see no evidence of sourcing/coverage that is more than local. Dallas is a large locale, certainly, but I don't think this is what is meant by "regional" coverage, which is the established bare minimum for a topic like this. I'm saying "tentative" instead of "weak" because...well, I don't know, really. I'm not 100% certain on this one, but for now I think it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see anything about "regional" coverage? Dream Focus 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a secondary guideline. WP:GNG has already been met. Dream Focus 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Trivial local coverage. Everything I've seen has been reviews and blogs. I don't think we want to greenlight every big-city restaurant that's been reviewed in a local paper or two. --JaGa^talk 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? That !vote was easy to debunk ;-) Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - promo reviews and local news - there are great off wiki places for such as this promotion of food outlets. - Youreallycan 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...but this one might hold some weight. Being local is not relevant, but what if the sources found can be seen as promotional? I'd like to find out what arguments are usually used with respect to reviews by professional critics; I consider this to be significant, but I could understand that someone could find this one bordering the routine and not significant. Somebody want to comment on this? Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Best Of rewards are not routine. Any establishment in the Dallas area that wins one is more than likely going to display their certificate in a place of pride. Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn means "Best New York-style pizza and Italian comfort food" in Dallas. I can understand why someone unfamiliar with the publication might, at first reading, mistake "Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn" for a casual mention by a beat writer, but if you will review the categories, you will see that many of the awards are named that way, even if the award is actually for an established category. Those are are actual annual awards, with one, maybe two or three or three winners out of each category for entire Dallas area. Considering that the Observer doesn't hand out an award for NY slices every year, this is basically a case where they split the Best Pizza category specifically in order to recognize Sal's. Pawsplay (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:Corp: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. That being said, on what basis is your claim being made? How is the Dallas Morning News Best of list different than Boston Magazine's annual Best of list? They give a plaque which the winners get, and they usually post it. Can you state what the criteria is for making the list? Is it some sort of metric, or is it a popularity poll? What makes this "Best of" list any different than any other one published by any other publication in the world? The answer you and others have been giving, It appeared in the biggest paper in the state of Texas therefore it is notable is not a valid reason to keep the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy, the link provided does not just illustrate inclusion in a "best of" list, it's also accompanied by a review so it can still be used to confer notability as "significant coverage". My doubt is at what point a critical review stops from being routine and begins being significant. Often at AfD there's a view that all critical reviews (such as travel guides and restaurant critics) are routine, but I don't think that this view is sensible. Why being true to the letter of GNG should not be a valid reason to keep the article? Diego (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Three reports from the same local paper do not pass WP:GNG by any stretch. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
@JaGa, Rob, Reaper: I find it hard to disagree with you all. This is a borderline case, in my opinion, and if I had to close it right now, based on the evidence and arguments presented here, it'd be a clear delete. This is not an article I would break a lance for. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Routine local and promotional coverage falls far short of establishing notability per WP:ROTM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Local news is actually an issue. After doing a search, there was only coverage from Dallas Morning news or other Dallas local periodicals. No news, it seems, even outside of the city, so it doesn't seem to bypass WP:ROUTINE. Silver seren^C 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Routine links to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is about events only. WP:CORPDEPTH does include "routine restaurant reviews" though. If any reasonable number of people ever agreed on such things before they were added to there, I might actually take that seriously. It was added in on June of 2011. [30] Not sure why it would fit in there with the rest of these things though. Totally different situation. I think WP:GNG fits here. Dream Focus 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't find any significant news outside of Dallas. And we can't have an article on every single restaurant discussed in sources in every city, as has been pointed out by people before. Local newspapers generally do a weekly feature or something on a local restaurant. The main issue with having such an article based on these sources is that the sources generally don't say much, not enough to actually make a complete article with all the sections that made at least a C class article. For example, this source listed in the article. If you read it, sure it's decently long, but it says absolutely nothing about Sal's in specific. The only thing usable from that source is the scores they gave, the text is just rambling garbage that doesn't have a point to it. Silver seren^C 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing to add every single restaurant that receives coverage. This specific restaurant is notable because it won category awards from two independent sources. Again, the links provided are not weekly features, but include annual roundup awards for the entire city. Out of every Italian restaurant in Dallas, there was a year that it was decided Sal's should be the one worth noting for being the best cheap eats, the best NY-style pie, etc. I find myself repeating once again that these mentions are NOT weekly featurings. The Dallas Observer's Best Of and D Magazine's Best and Worst are credible mentions. The Knockers article was not added by me; it is a supporting article only and provides some local color. The notability is supported by the separate accolades from Dallas Observer and D Magazine. Sal's is notable because Dallas restaurants are a notable topic, and Sal's is a notable Dallas restaurant. I don't see how Wikipedia becomes more valuable by deleting articles about actual cuisine and retaining articles about S'barro or whatever. Pawsplay (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We agree on one thing: The D Magazine bit is definitely a "mention." If it were significant coverage, and if D Magazine were a non-local source, then we'd have something. Unfortunately for Sal's Pizza, neither of these things are true. Sal's being a member of a notable group (Dallas restaurants) does not necessarily mean that Sal's is in and of itself notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently claims that a Metropolitan_area is a region. Examine also North_Texas which lists the Dallas/Fort Worth Area Tourism Council under external links. You are misusing the term "local" here as if D/FW were a single city. Do you understand you are talking about an area that covers 19 counties, around 6 million people, over 14,000 sq miles, and over 100 miles in distance? It is the size of Vermont, with ten times the population. Pawsplay (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - As of the time of this post, the article has been expanded and an additional source has been added to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is the most ridiculous bit of coatracking I have ever seen. A person from your workforce gets murdered, that does nothing to increase the wiki notability of it - he wasn't at work when it happened - the murder has no relation to the pizza place at all - I removed it, if the articles kept or not that content has no place in this article - sheesh - Youreallycan 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  - (to clarify) I didn't add the information, I only denoted it here for this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that the murder was not related to the production of allegedly very good pizza in the Dallas metropolitan area, which probably really has crappy pizza because Texans don't really know pizza and probably also eat cinnamon raisin bagels. Joking aside, I think where we come out here is that the regional coverage of Sal's, though not insignificant, is below the general GNG standard. One or two articles about the shop from a non-Dallas large paper, e.g., say the NY or LA times writing about what to do on a weekend in Dallas, might be sufficient, but that's not what we have here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What complicates finding any other sources, if they exist, is that Sal's Pizza is a general pizza shop name for unaffiliated restaurants. So there's a bunch of them in other cities that have nothing to do with each other. Silver seren^C 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The murder information is a classic example of passing mention, why it ever made its way into the article is beyond me. That was poor attempt to derail the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I added it because the local coverage of the murders mentioned his longterm employment at Sal's. The objection that he wasn't at work when it happened is absurd. The people writing the articles for the news were the ones who decided to mention the relationship. The reason it was mentioned should be pretty obvious; Sal's is a recognized and notable establishment, and David Jackson was cherished neighborhood figure. Notability does not apply to the contents of an article, only to the article itself. It seems pretty obvious to me that this section was axed simply because someone wants to see the article deleted, not because the paragraph itself was a problem. AFAIK it's still an unsolved murder case involving a well-known employee, and hence is still worthy of inclusion in the article. Please refrain from allowing contention over the article's notability to spill over into vandalism of the article itself. Pawsplay (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

*And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)striking my gripe as its not really specific to this deletion discussion. Youreallycan 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly. So, winning some awards just for being awesome pizza is not notable enough. But being mentioned in an unsolved murder case is "worthless." Meanwhile, D Magazine is a "local" publication, even though its readership is the combined size of the entire population of several incorporated cities in Vermont. I want to assume good faith, but what I'm really sensing here is some anti-Texas snobbery. can we talk about, maybe? Pawsplay (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - people would do well to remember that "it's just a local source" is considered an invalid argument for deletion, and that neither general notability nor reliable sources say anything against sources being local. "Local" is just from organizations guideline; also avoiding "regular coverage" is a requirement for the events guideline, and both are alternates to GNG, not replacing it. If the general criteria are met, having the sources being local or routine will say nothing against the provided coverage. This decision should be taken because of the strength of sources alone, not extraneous criteria like local or routine which have never been part of the general notability consensus.

As for the comments dismissing sources for being reviews, I'll point out to the main criterion in the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay. I think this article does have potential to be a beautiful snowflake (and thus above a cookie-cutter template), but will reserve my !vote as I'm undecided about the sources. Diego (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it could easily become an article of this shape. Pawsplay (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Then the ITSLOCAl section needs to be reworded, as there is significant past precedent that only local news stories without a single national or even other region source doesn't meet the cut. For example, see these past AfDs: here, here, here. There's many more besides those with similar results. Silver seren^C 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How much of that "precedent" can be counted as community-wide consensus? This and this policy discussions make it clear that the general notability guideline is not bound by the requirement of non-local sources found at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). That's why WP:ITSLOCAL is an invalid argument for deletion (and the section shouldn't be rewritten), and why the above !votes don't hold weight. Previous AfDs can be used to inform consensus-building discussions at the policy talk pages, but their particular weight is small since the local (no pun intended) consensus they can met is mediated by the quality of their particular sources. Fact is that the argument against local sources has never reached wide consensus, or it would have be encoded in the primary guidelines and policies by now. As it stands, it's only used at the complementary guidelines that are used as alternate ways to inform notability but don't supersede the GNG. Diego (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If it meets the WP:GNG that's all that matters. You can't have secondary guidelines overriding the primary one. An article must meet the primary or secondary, it doesn't have to meet both, as past consensus has clearly been established. Dream Focus 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I'd hope that all editors would devote more time to talk about the quality and significance of the sources, and less about their physical location. ;-) Diego (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The routine restaurant reviews in the Notability for organization and companies article has been removed by me after discussing it on the talk page with other editors. [31] Dream Focus 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please note: Dream Focus' modification to that notability guideline was swiftly reversed, so "routine restaurant reviews" still appears in the guideline, and I'm alarmed that this is what passes for "discussing it on the talk page with other editors." One person from this AfD agreed with you, one person not from this AfD disagreed, and that was it? Yikes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I discussed it, two others agreed with me, no one objected, so over 24 hours after I started the discussion and no objections about, I removed it. Didn't think anyone would mind. Then two additional people showed up to participate, disagreeing with me, and put it back in. Dream Focus 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found a nice mention on gayot.com. Unfortunately, that site is currently blacklisted. I submitted a request to have it de-listed. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The site has apparently had a history of being spammed in the past. Submitting a whitelisting for www.gayot.com/restaurants/sals-dallas-tx-75219_15df00108.html Pawsplay (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete The first half of the article is a violation of WP:SPAM the second is coverage of a non-notable, but tragic, crime that happened to be against an employee of the restaurant. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Sal's, nor does the article use any laudatory language. What exactly are you identifying as spam? Pawsplay (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that winning an award from a news source for being the best, makes the coverage more than just routine coverage. Dallas Observer gave them their best of award in 1993, and D Magazine listed them in the "Best Neighborhood Restaurants 2008". As has been pointed out, there 6,371,773 people in the Dallas metropolitan area. Dream Focus 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The most accurate way of interpreting the D Magazine listing, and this is disregarding that it's local coverage either way, is that Sal's Pizza is one of the 6 best restaurants in the Dallas neighborhood of Oak Lawn, population 48,418. This is not a noteworthy distinction, even if D Magazine were a non-local publication. The Dallas Observer's "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award appears to be the better argument for notability, setting aside, again, the problem of local-only coverage. The notion that a local newspaper's conferring of a "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award on a pizzeria makes that pizzeria a notable topic for encyclopedia is ludicrous. That we're even discussing this single, local award as an argument in favor of notability should tell anyone all they need to know about whether this topic is actually notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 12 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.

[edit] Zindagi Games

(Find sources: "Zindagi Games" – news · books · scholar · free images)

nominated for a7. declined on the grounds that "some of their games have notability". notability is not inherited. fails WP:CORP Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I found no notability. The games are notable, but this company isn't. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The only credible information I could find were two mentions of the same event, where the company matched charitable donations, and verify the location of the company. Not enough to keep an entire article, I don't think. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep The custom Google search for reliable sources approved by the Wikiproject for video games, shows 7,650 results. [32]. That is a lot to wade through but I found this one: [33] But Zindagi's talent clearly doesn't stop at the ability to craft phenomenal motion control mechanics. Many of the nuances of Sports Champions were lost on its casual audience. And then they also say, among other things, We can be pretty certain Zindagi's working on something for the PlayStation Move. The company describes itself as a "PlayStation Move developer" on its website, and apparently played an integral part in the development of the controller. We also know the company was recently hiring for a PlayStation 3 project. Whatever they're cooking, we have the utmost faith in Zindagi concocting a title that justifies the PlayStation Move for a second time, and hopefully we see it at E3 this year. Seems like enough mention of them in that article to count as notable. Dream Focus 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I found an interview that Product Manager Colin O'Hara did on G4TV. But the video won't load up for me. Anyone able to see this? Does he talk about his company or how they do things, or just about their products? [34] Dream Focus 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also was unable to get the video to load, looks like it might be a dead link. wouldve been a good find for keep though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the direct link to the FLV: [35] (archiveurl). If you still can't view it from that link, convert the video to another format (e.g., MP4) and it should work. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Element 9 (music)

(Find sources: "Element 9 (music)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. joe•roe^t•c 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep How is Element 9 a non-notable company? The company has been nominated for a Grammy award & released 2 albums through Fontana Distribution/Universal Music Group. What more does a record label have to do in order to be considered "notable?" If you apply the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 certainly meets the qualifications listed by:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

--Element9hiphop (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment If we applied the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 might meet the qualifications. However, Element 9 is not a musician. It is a corporation whose products include notable musicians. This should definitely be taken into consideration when assessing notability, but does not by itself qualify the company as notable. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The company has provided sufficient evidence to establish notability as determined by WP:CORPDEPTH. Depth of coverage is established through the use of multiple independent sources, many of which are intended for a worldwide audience that have published non-trivial articles pertaining to Element 9. --75.187.204.229 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Storyway

(Find sources: "Storyway" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Storyway does not seem terribly significant WP:NN. The German Wikipedia does not contain an article on the topic, and it seems out of place here. Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This article was originally about a South Korean chain of convenience stores. It was hijacked to be about a German blog. The original article has been restored. No opinion about the notability of this business. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 3 February 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?} 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Innovation Park (Pennsylvania State University)

(Find sources: "Innovation Park (Pennsylvania State University)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

A non-notable business park attached to Penn State University; the article's only source is the business park's own website, and the text is largely an advertisement for the park's benefits. Google News and Books turn up no significant mentions in non-PSU sources, nor any specific claim to notability. Khazar (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the nominator's concern about advertising content, I would be inclined to keep this article simply because independent media seems to treat Innovation Park as the sort of notable place that's generally kept under criteria such as WP:NPLACE. See for example the many GNews results at [36] and [37]. I agree that the promotional content should be cleaned up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 9 February 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?} 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 9. Snotbot t • c » 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] University of Dreams

(Find sources: "University of Dreams" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Filing AFD on behalf of new editor who didn't do it properly. Rationale was "Organization not significant, article is written as advertisement for organization Notice the "we", aka "outside contributions"." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is certainly enough reliable secondary sourcing here for notability. If editors think it reads as advertisement, they should do some editing work to correct that fault. --MLKLewis (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Being mentioned isn't really notable, they are mentioned indeed but so were other companies that are not on Wikipedia as well. There aren't any significant articles that specifically talk about University of Dreams they mention it and that's it. Boobymonster (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, the article was created by a user Sbergner2001, Scott Bergner is the media contact at University of Dreams, the article was created as an ad to the company:

http://www.summerinternships.com/about-us/media.php Boobymonster (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The secondary sources show notability. A412 (Talk * C) 00:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Done fixing it up for WP:NPOV. Looks notable, if just barely, because of the media coverage. A412 (Talk * C) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hewan Amharic Software

(Find sources: "Hewan Amharic Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Lacks requisite RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I was hoping that this might be saved; this software business makes word processors for the Ethiopian script, and that may have some historic significance. But I find zero News and Scholar hits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dmoz Pakistan

(Find sources: "Dmoz Pakistan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Gnews and gbooks don't seem to be familiar with this apparently non-notable software company. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Parc Place Systems

(Find sources: "Parc Place Systems" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Subject of the article appears to be a non-notable defunct software company. Although it was a spinoff of a notable company, notability is not inherent. This particular organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete There is just a timeline. Nothing else. Entire article lacks inline citations. Requires a lot of cleanup or just throw it out entirely. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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 keep but possible merge. Since consensus is in favor of keeping this content somewhere, discussion of a merge or redirect can and should continue at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Process improvement

(Find sources: "Process improvement" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Original research and trivial definition of a non-notable neologism that's too vague to mean ... well ... anything:

In organizational development (OD), process improvement is a series of actions taken by a process owner to identify, analyze and improve existing business processes within an organization to meet new goals and objectives.[citation needed] These actions often follow a specific methodology or strategy to create successful results/
Process improvement is also a method to introduce process changes to improve quality, reduce costs, or accelerate schedules.

Mostly a See Also list to a large number of articles that themselves need to be looked at. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Business Process Improvement [38] The article is notable.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I could easily live with a redirect. Is there anything to merge? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More then likely you are correct but I'll leave that to the author(s) to decide. If the author(s) do see this deletion activity perhaps the might help with "Business Process Improvement". Just a suggestion.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

merge as suggested above. We can decide that, though someone does have to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Entire books are written about process improvement as you can readily see from the search link above. For example, see Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness. Wikipedia and AFD is itself a process in much need of improvement and work upon this notable topic might help this along. Deleting the topic instead would be an absurd act of denial. Warden (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Warden (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - This topic has been covered in reliable tertiary sources. Here's two I added to the article:

Cook, Sarah (1996). "Process improvement: a handbook for managers". Gower Publishing Ltd, et al.. http://books.google.com/books?id=9ldXrWV7RT0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Process+improvement%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6BktT_n9IKSXiALKkJGgCg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Process%20improvement%22&f=false. Retrieved February 04, 2012. ISBN 0-566-07633-0
Kock, Nereu F. (et al.) (1994). The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper). The Learning Organization. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=882523&show=abstract.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hard to sort through the 26,700 Google news archive search results, and the 103,000 Google book search results. I eliminate the word "business", "managers", "office", and others from the results, but I still keep getting those which are related to business. If it the same thing is business process improvement, then merge makes sense. Dream Focus 11:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge As suggested. Sources provided above emphasize this is a business process. "Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness" and "Process improvement: a handbook for managers" and "The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper)". These sources are a perfect example of why this should be merged into Business process improvement. We don't need two articles on the same exact subject. This isn't a loss of content, it's consolidation of the same topic.--v/r - T P 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Process improvement is not confined to businesses. For example, as a member of USAF, you should be familiar with the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century program. Warden (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: This article is 9 years old, created in 2003 when the project had maybe 150,000 articles. People weren't making pages for every Captain & Tennille single or what have you back then. Admittedly, "process improvement" is a very generic term and isn't a flashy one like Taylorism, and the article could use improvement, but the term is notable. Books like this one [39] confirm that. I know this stuff it utterly boring, but its important to business management research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re suggestion of merger to Business process improvement, I am not sure. That article claims it derives from a 1991 book, and I would be surprised if process management research in a broad sense doesn't predate that significantly, things like the Hawthorne effect derive from research done in the 1920s.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem to support a merge. Do you have sources that support a stand alone article?--v/r - T P 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've had the misfortune to do studies in this area so I know this isn't a "non-notable neologism" as the nominator claims. Whether I want to actually do this work is another thing entirely, but there's a reason we don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizational Behavior around here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me some examples? The examples above seem to support that this term is a business term. I'd like to see what you have so I can determine whether or not your sources support this claim for myself.--v/r - T P 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. Digging up these old textbooks would be a pain if I still have them, but yes, the term is a business or management term. But the Business process improvement seems to be some specialized version based on a 1991 book. Perhaps a merge and rewrite is what's really needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the other article needs to be renamed too.--v/r - T P 19:11, 6 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.

[edit] Victoria Hall Limited

(Find sources: "Victoria Hall Limited" – news · books · scholar · free images)

looks remarlably like corporate advertising; few independent sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Advertisement for a company that provides student accommodation. References are to internal sites, non-notable trade awards, and university pages that note it as a potential provider of student housing. No showing that this business has made history in any way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Business service provider

(Find sources: "Business service provider" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested proposed deletion. Patent nonsense definition of a non-notable neologism, filled with puffery and other indications of intent to advertise: Business service providers (BSPs) are companies that offer state-of-the-art business applications over the Web. More gibberish:

A service-based application is composed of a number of possibly independent services in a service-oriented architecture (SOA), which perform the desired functionalities of the architecture.
BPS are delivered as Web services , designed with modern security, management, and identity standards to facilitate the plug-and-play integration of these services with other BSP services or with internal corporate Web services. The integration platform for BSP services within a company is the enterprise service bus, a standardized communication platform built on top of service-to-service messaging.

That's almost the entire article. "Referenced" to definitions hosted at some kind of Wiki or similar bloglike site. You will notice that the definition is oddly parochial and ahistorical; apparently nobody was a "business service provider" before the World Wide Web. Truly, computers are what makes the world go round! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Keep- the article no longer sounds as promotional, will try to clean it up. A412 (Talk * C) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your version certainly makes more sense than the original; but is this now redundant to outsourcing? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 February 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?} 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] SGS Industrial Services

(Find sources: "SGS Industrial Services" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is an article about a subsidiary of a company. I can find no evidence that the particular division is notable, and the only references provided are self-references. In addition, a previous reviewer has tagged it as a possible COI and the author originally had his AfC request for this article originally turned down as "advertising". AndrewRT(Talk) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Another global provider of technical inspection, verification, testing and conformity assessment services for industrial markets advertising on Wikipedia. Unreferenced but self-congratulatory history of the business. Current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 30 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, Wifione ^Message 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete (worst case) Corporate advertisement; best case merge to SGS S.A. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dexetra

(Find sources: "Dexetra" – news · books · scholar · free images)

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 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)

[edit] Whistles

(Find sources: "Whistles" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Some press coverage but doesn't seem to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep - notable company. In addition to sources cited in the article, coverage at [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Peter E. James (talk) 19:28, 31 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?} 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] TFG Sports

(Find sources: "TFG Sports" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have no position on the article being deleted, but to aid those who participate in this AfD, I have to share this. If you go to Google or another similar search engine and look up 'TFG Sports', you'll find two companies that need to be distinguished.
1. A South African sports retail chain. There's an article about them in the African Business Journal. TFG here stands for 'Track and Field Group'
2. The subject of this article, a UK-based sportswear company. The 'TFG' in 'TFG Sports' here stands for 'The Fielding Group'. Their website is tfgsports.com, only it doesn't actually work and just returns the word "test". They are a subdivision of a larger company, The Fielding Group, who manufacture clothes for a wide range of retailers in both the sportswear and more general clothing sector.
I think the most promising course of action, if sources can be found, is probably to create a stub called 'The Fielding Group' and redirect to that. As for sources? The best I can find are The Independent and New York Times, although the latter is really more of a passing mention. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 28 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?} 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cause + Affect

(Find sources: "Cause + Affect" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

delete - Cause + Affect website say they are closing down, so it is only a 3 year company anyway. Rwendland (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a concern here; the concern is notability (or lack thereof). In order to be deemed non-notable, Cause + Affect must lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right to point that out. I was being careless in what I wrote - I'd also done a search for notable comment about them and could also not find anything; I should have mentioned that but forgot. Rwendland (talk) 09:14, 30 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Great Hotels of the World

(Find sources: "Great Hotels of the World" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unreferenced and not notable. A service marketing arm for a grouping of hotels - essentially just a front service with a web presence. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Primary sources only, including Twitter and Facebook? Kill it with G11. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for G11 speedy deletion. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I declined a speedy on this: the article is purely factual, not promotional. The article does need 3rd party references to show notability , but I see no indication anyone has looked for them. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I did do a trawl for refs before nomination (as would be expected). All I found were sheaves of stuff from individual hotels lauding their membership and similar stuff from travel sites making it part of their sales pitch. Nothing that I would called notable or capable of establishing notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Google news did not return hits, main Google only provided the Wiki and mirror sites.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Zubed

(Find sources: "Zubed" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP, very promotional in tone. I found a few hits on google news but they seem to be press releases. Probably qualifies for an speedy but it was prodded and the prod removed by a single purpose account Delete Secret ^account 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Another location intelligence company, a developer of web-based public sector and corporate geomapping and search applications advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Datamatics Global Services

(Find sources: "Datamatics Global Services" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Advertisement for another software services and consulting company. Current text is unambiguous advertising:

The company provides business solutions to a wide range of industry verticals and the service offerings span across IT consulting, business process transformation, off-the-shelf technology solutions and customized software services.It also provides services to embedded engineering and telecommunications, solutions for ticketing, toll and parking applications.

References are to press releases about executive hires, routine contract announcements, and stock market data pages. Being the first company in the world to guarantee 99.997% accuracy level in Data Capture does not seem to be the sort of achievement that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards improving than deleting? KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's just another IT outsourcing business. Why should such a thing be covered in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete - There is nothing notable here, and certainly not neutral (the term 'solutions' appears three times in the first four paragraphs. Even if this is notable, it will require a fundamental rewrite to achieve the required neutrality. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. It looks to me like it just about passes the GNG and, specifically, WP:CORP. I was hitherto unaware that our policies set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether - could somebody point out the specific policy? bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Do you have specific sources that establish that this business has made history in its field? I don't believe the references currently in the article get there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Which policy requires that a business "makes history in its field"? I searched through Wikipedia:Notability and didn't find a single mention of "history". It's mentioned in your essay, of course, but that's not a policy no matter how often you link to WP:B2B at AfD. It would also help if you could clarify how we set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether, as I can't find a policy basis for that either. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning, when 'notability' was selected as the name for the kind of significance needed to make something a stand alone encyclopedia article subject, it has always meant long term historical notability. "Notable" for our purposes is exactly the same thing as "important enough to support a stand alone encyclopedia article", and since notability is not temporary, if it's notable now it must be notable forever. For that reason, the business notability guideline asks whether a business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture, and when the possibility exists of commercial conflict of interest, I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of significance before allowing in obvious spam like this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep It meets the relevant guideline. "Makes history in its field" is more like the equivalent of famous, and is not required for notability--but in fact the article claims it has reached the highest rate of accuracy ever in its field--it would be good to have a 3rd party source for that. The only special problem with outsourcing companies is that it's usually harder to find references than businesses that directly serve consumers. . When there are, this makes all the more reason to keep it. Smerdis' argument amounts to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE, as a pure personal opinion, unsupported by policy and consequently irrelevant to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC) .

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Appears to just barely meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nawaz Rice Engineering

(Find sources: "Nawaz Rice Engineering" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No evidence of notability. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 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?} 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Can't verify the first source, but the other two are a company website and an index listing. My own search doesn't reveal anything that would enable this company to pass WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE , Wikipedia police must give some respect to honorable companies from small, poor countries. Nawaz Rice Engineering is the only company from Pakistan that has put "Made in Pakistan" machinery in Europe and North America. Please see the following links so you know their footprint is global and a pride for Pakistan. Please do not delete it. It has been on Wiki for over an years. http://panjiva.com/Nawaz-Rice-Engineering/1609213

, http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/nawaz-rice-engineering.html, http://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/nawaz-rice-engineering http://www.21food.com/showroom/49881/aboutus/amanat-nawaz-rice-ab,.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the ImportGenius links give me 404 errors, so I can't comment on them. The Panjiva and 21food links are just company listings, much as you'd find in any directory. They are totally unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary Records

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Necessary Records

Articles for deletion/Necessary Records (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Necessary Records" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Has been mentioned at least twice in Billboard here and here and several times in Music Week but these are behind paywalls. I added one of the Billboard refs confirming its founder and year of creation. Also notified WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task Force of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete the sources are tangential at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep The label has multiple charted releases (singles and albums) in multiple countries. Yes, all with a single band, but it has signed multiple bands, so it's not a vanity label. Has been around for 9 years, so not fly-by-night. The article needs a ton of help, undoubtedly, but the subject is inherently notable. 78.26 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep as per above. A band the label represents has charted releases and been nominated for several awards. The label has multiple bands on the roster. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete – This subject fails WP:GNG; WP:CORPDEPTH is particularly lacking in coverage. Trivial mentions in great sources are trivial nonetheless, and having multiple clients doesn't aggregate notability on that basis alone. It'd be something else if a few bands themselves were notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The label was responsible for the release of Hard-Fi's debut album, which ended up peaking at #1 on the UK album charts. The label was responsible for the band signing to Atlantic Records in 2004. All this can be found on a number of sources, including Billboard Magazine, which is not trival and not tangential in its reporting of the influence that the label has had in the band's success. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Live Here Now

(Find sources: "Live Here Now" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep while not a record label per se, they have signed some pretty big names, including Erasure and Depeche Mode. Sourcing seems sparse but not entirely nonexistant: short NME article Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Grow My Media

(Find sources: "Grow My Media" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

delete fails WP:GNG. no evidence of wider coverage than Mancheseter. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete can't fathom its notability. lacks sources, and most Ghits seem to be generic usages or WP mirrors. Articles cited do not even mention the agency. No news hits. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] NewCom International

(Find sources: "NewCom International" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Promotional article about a communications company with unclear notability. The company did win one award, however Google News only returns press releases. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Another global telecommunications provider advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced only to in-company sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Several sources are from Satmagazine.com, (see article), which doesn't appear to be affiliated with NewCom International. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, this source from Satmagazine.com is an interview with a NewCom International employee: [46], and may possibly be applicable regarding topic notability. However, these two articles from Satmagazine.com were written by a NewCom International employee, and are considered primary sources (not suitable to prove notability): [47] and [48]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 31 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 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, Wifione ^Message 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Lack of reliable third party sources to attest to notability. No news hits, all are afor namesakes Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Volt Workforce Solutions

(Find sources: "Volt Workforce Solutions" – news · books · scholar · free images)

WP:NOTABILITY - gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions; ghits quickly come down to database entries and other minor matters. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Subsidiary of another non-notable business. Contains an entirely unreferenced history section, suggesting conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Retain. One note above says "gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions." The link confirming "11th largest staffing company" is to a list produced by the industry's primary trade group, and it's a list of largest staffing companies. (Every listing is a "minor mention".) The historical information links to the company's website because it is the most comprehensive compilation of the company's history.

Volt Workforce Solutions is indeed a subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences, but it is the customer-facing (and largest) division, and because of its corporate scope (employment agency), we feel Wikipedia readers may want to find information on the company. A cursory glance of Wikipedia content shows that many company's subsidiaries are included on the site (Sikorsky, a subsidiary of United Technologies, has a page; Avanade, a subsidiary of Accenture, has a page.) WReagan (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A simple inclusion on a list is a minor mention; it is not the sort of in-depth coverage that WP:NCORP calls for. The fact that the list is numbered does not make it significant. Subsidiaries certainly aren't barred from having their own pages, so long as the subsidiary itself is sufficiently notable. For example, there are chapters in aviation history books just about Sikorski. If a subsidiary is not notable on its own, however, it ought not get its own article; subsidiaries of notable companies can get coverage in the main company's article, which is what I earlier recommended for VWS, although others have now raised the question of VIS's own notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 24 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?} 17:21, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Being on a list is not significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Linkcycle

(Find sources: "Linkcycle" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Another technology company that evaluates the environmental performance of products and services using life-cycle assessment advertising on Wikipedia. Deliberately vague gibberish: The mission of LinkCycle is to tackle the global challenge of environmental degradation and climate change by providing a collaborative software that brings down the costs of LCA. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, as the author I would dispute your claim that the statement is "so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." The company has achieved recognition for its vision of using linked data collaboration to reduce the costs of environmental assessment and bring the LCA industry to scale. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Meets notability criteria: Organization has received independent coverage of significant depth:

Buttell, Amy (December 21, 2011). "Business plan competition winner offers insights". BizPlanCompetitions.com (US). http://www.bizplancompetitions.com/2011/12/business-plan-competition-winner-offers-insights/. Retrieved January 22, 2012.

-- Selfless101 (talk) - 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)— Selfless101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Thomson Reuters has noted them as well". [49]. http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/mit-100k-entrepreneurship-competition/. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Interesting they have obtained US DOE recognition as well, which to me is strong industry notice". [50]. http://energy.gov/articles/meeting-next-generation-energy-entrepreneurs-mit-showcase/. Retrieved January 23, 2012.

Winning "business plan competitions" or "entrepreneurship competitions" is not the sort of tangible, lasting achievement that gets a business into an encyclopedia. Nor is having one of your press releases quoted in a Dept. of Energy press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: Arguments based on poilicy and/or guidelines as to whether the company is notable will help to achieve a suitable outcome here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The indication of a 'tangible, lasting achievement' is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The notability criteria that are required by Wikipedia, however, are met by the independent coverage of significant depth in the US DoE blog. The fact that the blog cites their source for the description of the company to be "drawn from the teams' own promotional materials" does not obstruct the satisfaction of the depth of coverage or independence criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability. Depth of coverage would be precluded by consisting only of trivial coverage such as, for example, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization," but this is not the case. Independence cannot be established by "press releases, press kits, or similar works", but this blog is not such as it was written from the government agency office of two of the prize competition judges, Henry Kelly and Steve Isakowitz. As judges they must be independent of the prize candidates, as is the larger government agency on whose behalf the blog is written. - Selfless101 (talk) - 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Company meets additional notability criteria of (1) audience and (2) independence of sources. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)— King delta blues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep Almost certain that the article meets notability criteria, and there are several reliable sources cited, though some of them would be more appropriate as external links. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Square Peg Round Hole Records

(Find sources: "Square Peg Round Hole Records" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Sources are poor as of 2008, bands and label have disbanded Craigster92 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Only one of the sources cited possibly meets the requirements, thisisull.com which only states that "During the summer Kill Surf signed a distribution deal through Square Peg Round Hole Records." Others seem to be user contributions to the sites or do not mention the label, and a search doesn't find anything useful. There isn't a strong indication of notability in the article, and the sourcing problem seems unlikely to be resolved as there is not enough verifiable information available. Peter E. James (talk) 02:02, 21 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?} 18:49, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 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, Wifione ^Message 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But does lack of sources equate to being not-notable? Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Business Proposed deletions

Please hide this entire section when empty

Fringe economics
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of management techniques - any opinions?

[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Mitzi McGilvray

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mitzi McGilvray

Articles for deletion/Mitzi McGilvray (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Mitzi McGilvray" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable person. No further evidence for notability is the past three years. Previous discussion was more about inherited than inherent notability. Thompson Is Right (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment One of the two references mentions them, the other is old and off line and I couldn't check. The external link to them at a game company is d4ead. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: There is coverage out there about her [51] not included in the current article, though her positions don't strike me as a strong case for notability. Software companies got much more of a pass in 2006.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep. Though there's not a lot of information about her in the article yet, there are definitely other sources.[52] The fact that she was chair of the IGDA is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. She was, and is, an important figure in the game industry. --El on ka 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited and IGDA is barely notable in itself. Given the failure to meet WP:GNG which get-out at WP:BIO do you rely on? I fail to see one myself. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] JahSun

(Find sources: "JahSun" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unable to locate sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. The fact that there seem to be several people with the same or similar aliases makes it unclear exactly who's who in the few sources I can find, but at any rate, none of them seem to be covered enough times in sufficient depth to be notable. Article was created by its subject. Cybercobra (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As CEO of a major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press... someone who has personally helped over a million people gain access to clean drinking water and sanitation, this call for lack of notability strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. If the removal of this article is called for, then why not the articles for the other CEO's of charity organizations. The fact that Scott Harrison and others warrant Wikipedia articles speaks to fact that being the CEO of an organization like Water Charity is notability enough.

Personally, it seems that User:Cybercobra appears to have a personal issue with me at the moment, which is uncalled for in this forum. He has taken it upon himself to personally spearhead attacks on all of my posts. I can understand if the Omnientheism article is not kept, as one of the sources of information for the article seems less than reliable. But for him to spend so much of his time obsessing over me personally and calling into question the notability of an organization that has a very proven and public track record of projects in approx. 70 nations worldwide, seems frivolous and mean-spirited. (note that charity:water only operates in 19 nations and has a page.)

If someone who comes to this page knows of any way to complain formally when a certain user targets someone for harassment or decides to have a vendetta, please post them here. Wikipedia should not be a place where petty people with nothing better to do with there time can make it their mission to target people for harassment. With the vast number of articles on the site, even if the user in question was unemployed and completely focused on Wikipedia, the idea that he could be spearheading attacks on every single entry I have made on this site purely by chance is ludicrous. JahSun (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Harassment

I ask that you call off your harassment of me and undo your most recent posts on the pages in question, and apologize to me. Should you continue in the manner you have, I will be forced to take this to arbitration. JahSun (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I would like a bit more evidence. 'Published author'? Doesn't seem to be available on Amazon. Being available there doesn't confer notability, but not being there.... I looked at the jahsun site, but no writings are listed there, either. It does say 'mostly done through [his] agent', but does that mean the writing or the publicity? The bit where he is addressing Rotary International (the whole organisation? the Deadman's Flats branch?) is a bit unnecessary, as he is merely quoting someone else. I am puzzled by a statement on the Water Charity site, which is probably not really relevant to this discussion (not a 'forum', please...): "Although Water Charity is relatively new as an organization, we have been “doing water projects” for well over 40 year". I don't understand that. There could be a case for notability here, but at present I am not seeing it. The only source in the references that is considered reliable by Wikipedia (see WP:RS) is the Ban Ki-moon one, which does not mention this person or his organisation. By the way, finding the same people at different places is not unusual here. We follow links from things we've found. Cybercobra is a long serving and respected volunteer here (virtually all are volunteers - the paid staff is not big enough to make a football team), and he does what a lot of us do - he follows through. That is why I am here. Peridon (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I will change my stance if reliable sources are brought up according to WP:RS (persons). At presence there is not more than the mere statement that those exist, not the sources themselves. L.tak (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I take it you mean WP:RS#Biographies of living persons ? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Actually, it was Wikipedia:Notability (persons) that I meant, but I didn't check my link anymore after posting.... L.tak (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong delete Clearly not a notable person. The article was created by the subject, and is an advertisement/personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"The fact that Scott Harrison and others warrant Wikipedia articles speaks to fact that being the CEO of an organization like Water Charity is notability enough." Not quite: WP:OTHERSTUFF --Cybercobra (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note The claim that JahSun is the CEO of a notable organization, Water Charity, is not true. Like this article that JahSun created about himself, this article is also not notable, and doesn't have any 3rd party reliable sources that establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim that I am not the CEO of Water Charity? Perhaps you are just being unclear.

I am not only the CEO, but a co-founder of this organization which is active in 70 nations worldwide. Why you feel the need to hound me on page after page baffles me. It is a sad commentary when you find this enjoyable or worthwhile. Wasn't the summary rejection of your last call for deletion enough to show you that you're lacking impartiality in this?JahSun (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I could find no evidence that JahSun or Jah Sun has received any coverage by independent reliable sources, which is required for an article here. I am also puzzled by JahSun's claim to be head of a "major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press". Are you talking about Water Charity? According to that article's Wikipedia page, Water Charity has no paid staff and is run entirely by three volunteers (one of them being JahSun), and I could not find a single mention of Water Charity in any independent source. I could also not verify any location for Water Charity, and I could not find any listing for it at Charity Navigator. It's hard to see how this could be defined as a "major international aid organization" by any stretch. MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See new references posted on the delete page for Water Charity. You seem to have not put much effort into your research. If helping 1 million people worldwide does not make us a major international aid organization I don't know what does. The fact that I donate my time as CEO does not make my work any less difficult or important. http://watercharity.org/node/6 clearly shows my rank in the Water Charity organization. JahSun (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The references you provided, to back your claim that you are a notable individual, are not WP:RS for a WP:BLP. Please read these two articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - self-promotional autobiography. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG so a neutral edit isn't going to help things. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Begoon ^talk 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per all of the above. After removing the promotionsal info, you are truely left with nothing. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, etc. Qworty (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Peter J. Arduini

(Find sources: "Peter J. Arduini" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Appears to be a non-notable businessman. No sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO ("he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") GrapedApe (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to Integra LifeSciences. He is not notable on his own and Wikipedia is not the place for a resumé. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can find no suitable references which establish notability. There is a Forbes profile, which in itself does not establish notability. There is also this, but that only references him is passing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Just some random business person with no inherent notability. This reads more like a LinkedIn profile than anything else. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete Per above. But wp:notability appears possible. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOTLINKEDIN S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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 The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. full prot on redirect Xavexgoem (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Enrico Pallazzo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Enrico Pallazzo

Articles for deletion/Enrico Pallazzo (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Enrico Pallazzo" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Enrico Pallazzo is the name of a fictional opera singer impersonated by Lt. Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) in the film The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. An earlier AfD apparently redirected this article to that film's article. Some months later, an editor with a grand total of three contributions (all related to this article) created the article again. This time it is supposedly about an actual individual, a deceased man who worked in the field of advertising. I suspect the article is a hoax—

its subject's claim of notability lies in a mention of something—"the Creative Revolution"—that is redlinked;
the article is entirely unsourced;
one of the two external links is dead and the other leads to an English-language entry on a German-language Google Books page (!) that, while evidently relating to advertising, makes no mention of Enrico Pallazzo (it does mention "the Creative Revolution" but the context is unclear);
the wording is suspicious;
a Google search for Enrico Pallazzo and Creative Revolution results only in Wikipedia-derived pages

—but am using AfD instead of anything more drastic because I'm not completely sure. If the result is to delete, may I suggest a sprinkle of salt? (If it isn't a hoax and the result is keep, the notability has got to be established once and for all.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete while that was certainly a memorable scene, this is a character with maybe a minute of screen time, tops. The rest of the article is some kind of hoax/nonsense/etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax or a coincidence of names in which the Mexican individual fails GNG. This from WP's piece on The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!: "During the Queen's visit to a California Angels baseball game, Jane tells Frank that one of the team's players will conduct the assassination. While hiding from his fellow policemen, who are now under orders to arrest him, Frank first attempts to disguise himself as the opera singer Enrico Pallazzo, brutally singing the U.S. national anthem along the way, and manages to secure the position of the home plate umpire and begins calling the game while simultaneously frisking all players for weapons." Carrite (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Leaving a redirect to The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - This was previously the above-mentioned redirect, hoaxed up by single-purpose editor Heyits in 2008, I see from the edit history. This is definitely a hoax. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was my impression. But resurrecting the redirect seems both unnecessary and unwise: the name is low-hanging fruit for anyone who has just watched the movie and is feeling playful, and this bogus version sat here for three years, mirrored on countless sites, its content copied onto blogs and Facebook and even translated into other languages. (See this for just one example: they saw it on Wikipedia and believed it.) That's why I suggested salting it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I've always considered it harder to convert a standing redirect page into a content page than it is to create a new content page from scratch. Obviously this case has shown that it CAN be done, but unless you're suggesting Delete-and-Salt, a redirect would seem to me more of a deterrent to vandalism that a simple deletion, which can easily be recreated. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggested deleting and salting. Twice. If it helps, I'll suggest it a third time now. :) Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete and salt - I am reverting back to b4 the hoax - its been published and mirrored by en wikipedia for plenty long enough. You really can 11:47, 5 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.

[edit] Bunmi Akinyemiju

(Find sources: "Bunmi Akinyemiju" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I could fix the unencyclopedic and unverifiable stuff about how awesome his businesses are and what type of nightclubs he likes (by removing most of it and leaving a stub), but I doubt he meets the notability requirements.

The cited sources suggest he may be a respected businessman and citizen in his local community, but do not seem to be the sort that confer a great deal of notability. A quick Google search found some self-published profiles and press releases, but no significant independent coverage. Kilopi (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 February 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?} 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N. Cloudz 679 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Ellsworth

(Find sources: "Barry Ellsworth" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Person is not worthy of a wikipedia article. He is of no significance. Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep: You say "he is of no significance", which I have to disagree with. Ellsworth founded a green energy company from his home in Las Vegas in 2004 that has grown to become the fourth largest ethanol producer in the world, employing approximately 640 people nationwide.[53] This information has been included now at the beginning of the article. Along with him being a current candidate for a seat with the U.S. Senate in Nevada makes him notable in my humble opinion. OSU1980 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012 as the current biography fails WP:POLITICIAN because he is an unelected candidate and all of the references pertain to his current Senate campaign. That article about the election is the place where all candidates for this seat can receive neutral, balanced coverage. If Ellsworth is independently notable as an energy company executive, then that needs to be demonstrated with reliable sources that discuss him as an energy company executive instead of as a political candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge per Gene; this is the usual outcome of candidates who have no other prior evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schabas

(Find sources: "Michael Schabas" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unreferenced autobiography with arguable notability. It was created by Micheal Schabas himself. If he deserves an article, someone should write one for him, as per WP:AUTO andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Name gets 16 hits in scholar, 130-ish in google books, most of which seem to be about this person. Haus^Talk 19:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOTCV. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Not sure what way to vote yet. But, there are refs about him and his different rail companies. There are 25 news articles that mention him with his companies and a ton of web references. I added a couple to the article. Note to submitter, a person can write about themselves, but it is strongly discouraged. It is not grounds for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete The "couple" of references added to the article both merely mention his name once in passing. No evidence of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is a pet peeve of mine. You obviously have only looked at the article and not have done any research. There are hundreds of hits in newspapers, web, book and journals that have him mentioned. I haven't voted one way or the other because I haven't gone thru them all. I only added the refs to back up the statements in the article as some of the nominators reasons for deleting were a) unreferenced b) COI and thus the article could be making statements that were false or misleading. Of course if this was a musician, people would be saying keep, but that is a pet peeve for another day. Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why I "obviously" have only looked at the article and not have done any research. I wonder how my contribution would have differed had I looked further, found nothing relevant, and therefore had nothing more to say. Of the mentions of him on Google books, we can presumably ignore those he wrote himself, those making one passing mention, a report on a conference, in which his name appears only in a list of names, and is not mentioned otherwise, other sources in which his name appears only in lists of credits, lists of company directors, etc. We are then not left with much, as far as I can see. The only thing among the numerous sources that I checked that was an independent source making more than passing mentions was a report on a British government consultation, in which he gave evidence. In that case there are several mentions of his name, but they scarcely contribute substantial coverage about him. Merely saying that there are many mentions of him without consideration of the nature of those mentions does nothing to establish notability. However, perhaps you have better sources than I have been able to find, since you must have used something more effective at finding mentions in books than Google books, because you say there are "hundreds of hits", but Google books produces only one hundred and thirty eight. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete After going thru the refs: He was a rail owner in England, currently a part-owner of a railroad in Germany, is a transportation expert, publisher of articles in transportation journals, was an adviser on the EuroTunnel and railprojects Australia, Africa, Germany, and England. However, none of these refs ever go into detail about Mr. Schabas. Without "significant coverage" per WP:GNG, he doesn't pass the nobility test. Bgwhite (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep - apparently notable railway executive management - This person's opinion and experience is taken as valuble in reliable third party publications that I would expect to be beyond reproach - ie see the google books results - (not the usual self published crap) includes stuff like Institution of Civil Engineers and witness to UK parliament. Consistent activity and associated with several notable firms that still exist - not flash in pan. Archive web news search also reveals coverage as promoter/manager of several schemes eg Die Welt, Telegraph, The Independent and reliable rail industry publications.

What needs to be looked at is the article - I don't see any real evidence of promotion - has it actually been established that the creator is the subject?

In terms of simple rules based notability "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" -check - created or founded more than one successful and notable railway business - and receives repeated recognition for it in press.

Article needs checking and referencing, plus double check for any negative news missed.Mddkpp (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found this odd piece http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/5306/ about a business transaction of GB Railways (subject was a key board member) - I haven't made full sense of it yet, but it shows that a more thorough look at the situation might be needed -this isn't even mentioned in GB Railways yet Edelaraudtee claims they are still owners!!Mddkpp (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge with GB Railways although with less mention as there is little about him outside of that company. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep The founder of a major firm is part of the "enduring historical record". History includes the history of business enterprises, and most certainly the history of infrastructure such as railroads. There is strong possibility for expansion, as the man has done other things, and may go on to do more. Successful businessmen usually do. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - My sense is that Wikipedia is better with this article than without it, although this is obviously a very borderline notability situation. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's reasoning; merger to GB Railways is also possible, but his significance seems to go beyond that one company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is a substantial figure in the UK rail industry. I should have thought he was notable just on the strength of the articles and papers he has written, but even leaving those aside, he has played an important part in several developments. You would not necessarily find these in Google hits because by no means everything is on line. Modern Railways for instance is the leading UK railway industry periodical and it is not on line. He has often appeared in it for one reason or another. We need to beware of the false idea that "if it's not on the internet, it didn't happen". -- Alarics (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the article strongly needs an article/biography/interview with Schabas - if you (or anyone else) can find one can you print out the volume/issue number/date on the articles talk page. Although there are lot of good internet sources on this persons activities there doesn't seem to be a "1 on 1" interview or mini-bio which is so valuable for a biography article.Mddkpp (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep Whilst not the most notable person his, influences are wide spread throughout the transport industry. Given that he has moved onto different things I don't feel it right to merge him with GB Railways. LongRobin79(talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Michael T Cammarata

(Find sources: "Michael T Cammarata" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No references supplied in an article about a living person. No sources supplied to indicate notability. A quick Google search did not reveal any reliable source discussing the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I've added a reference for the first section of the article, and I've added two external links. Cammarata was only 13 years old when he first emerged as one of the early innovators in monetizing the Internet Advertising marketplace. The article could use some cleanup work, especially with certain content that needs further verified. I will assist further as best as I can should the article survive this afd. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The two external links you supplied appear to be press releases (the one from Red Orbit pretty clearly so and the other one seems likely) which do not go toward establishing notability. The reference you supplied does not appear to be a reliable source (from what I can tell it collects stuff from all over the Internet in order to help members learn English) and is a copy of the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article (complete with the footnote superscript rendered as "[1]" instead of a superscript). I've removed the reference for now. SQGibbon (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Achilles

(Find sources: "Allen Achilles" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No notability from WP:RS and no indication of importance outside of site that subject founded. Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete If an article existed on the website he founded, then redirect to that. But I can't find any reliable sources for Achilles himself, just press releases etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete One of the refs doesn't mention the subject: the other is his own website. So no coverage in Reliable sources. Tigerboy1966 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine Alexander-Goulandris

(Find sources: "Constantine Alexander-Goulandris" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article fails to meet notability guidelines for biographies. It contains no reliable sources or in-line citations. The sources provided are either irrelevant or make no mention of the subject. Searching Google Books came back with no reliable sources (one hit- a book that is a collection of Wikipedia articles). Google News archive search came back with three articles, none from reliable sources, and all of which cite the Wikipedia page as their source of information. Original author requested the article be taken down multiple times to allow time to “fact-check” and “confirm its complete accuracy,” however it remained with no additional reliable sources being added. Numerous other editors have asserted that this person is fictional. Robfrederick (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There is passing mention of him in this Wall St. Journal blog entry and in this Luxist entry. So if it's a hoax, they were taken in. Even if he does exist, I'm not convinced that this is enough RS coverage to warrant an article, but I'll admit to not being an expert. Meelar (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The non-WP:RS Luxist says he's the billionaire buyer, the WSJ blog cites them while regurgitating this non-fact, then Luxist admits they were wrong. WSJ does not bother to correct their blog entry--it's just a blog, after all, I guess. This is the type of sourcing we're dealing with here, when there is sourcing at all. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not making a claim one way or the other about the article--that's why I made a comment instead of a !vote. But it does cast some doubt on the alleged non-existence of the article subject, and the claim that "The sources provided are either irrelevant or make no mention of the subject" that was made in the nomination. Meelar (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Luxist article claims its “source” is a “well-connected Luxist follower” and then cites this Wikipedia entry for its additional information on Goulandris. This hardly qualifies as reliable and as far as my research has shown seems to be the only “proof” of his existence on the internet. Robfrederick (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Many grand claims, mostly unsourced, or else poorly sourced from gossip pages. Substantial coverage from WP:RS sources is sorely lacking. Fails WP:GNG, and could well violate WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 27 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Repurpose the article goes to some length to explain why there is not sufficient information--but his companies are probably notable, and this could redirect to articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no pages for either of the companies to be redirected to. No reliable sources could be found that verify either of the companies this page claims he owns even exist. There was a WP on one of these companies, Victory Carriers, which was created by the same user that created this page, however it was deleted “based on lack of reliable third-party sources, and findings of invalid/missourced original information.” Within the deletion discussion for that article the nominator also asserted that he thought Alexander- Goulandris was a WP:HOAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfrederick (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I have flagged this article as a possible hoax (in whole or part). See discussion on Talk:Constantine_Alexander-Goulandris. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. There is absolutely no reliable source. The whole history of this article looks extremely fishy, and it's a pity we did not delete it when the author asked us to. The only mention of its subject in the references is a Wall Street Journal blog, which quotes "Luxist", whose sources are "A well-connected Luxist follower" who is immediately contradicted by "an insider." With no more than anonymous gossip to go on, the article fails WP:V, and careful research reported on the talk page has failed to find confirmation of anything it says, including the companies.

Ghits are almost all based on this article, or on the Luxist gossip, but among them I find this, according to which he is married to Susanne Livanos de Kasa-Hunyady. A year ago we had a string of Kasa-Hunyady hoax articles, and that confirms my view that this is a hoax rather than just unsourced BLP. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 9 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.

[edit] William R. James

(Find sources: "William R. James" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable businessman. A Gsearch provides no substantial 3rd party sources. All the links in the article are dead. GNews archive search shows nothing for "William R. James"+radnor. The bio in the Radnor company brochure doesn't indicate anyone of any notability.[54]. Fails WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 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?} 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - This seems like basic housekeeping — an essentially unsourced stub about a seemingly non-notable businessman. Probably should have been stopped at the front gate by a page patroller. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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. Lack of sources (only source is a dead link) also indicates a potential BLP problem, aside from notability. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jwcurry

(Find sources: "Jwcurry" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:AUTHOR dubious. bender235 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete I have nominated it for BLPROD, too. Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't seem to notice that the article was created years back, so I have removed my PROD. Let's see if I can find any sources..... 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

This biography can be deleted under BIODEL in case there is no keep !vote. Still, relisting for a week just to be sure as the person exists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete this person lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:00, 10 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.

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Rana Shabbir Ahmad Khan

(Find sources: "Rana Shabbir Ahmad Khan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Seems not to meet WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Since it has no content, nothing would be lost if wp:notability were to be established at a later date and the articl4e restarted. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Being chairman of a bank with 357 branches, 5500 employees and a million customers is certainly an indication of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but just clarifying, it is not refuting my point which was about indication of wp:notability in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. How does this fail WP:V? The source in the article clearly verifies its content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This article didn't have an AfD template until today, so this discussion needs to be relisted to allow a week's discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it needs to be relisted but I am also sure that it did have the template. I always check because I use Twinkle and it can barf sometimes (never has for me, but I've seen people say this). Maybe some weird db glitch? - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit of yours removed the template. You probably still had a tab open with the previous version of the article and edited that rather than the then current version - I know I've been caught out like that several times. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn. That sounds possible. Sorry, folks. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of Phil Bridger's argument the CEOs of very large companies are notable, even if the information is hard to find for some geographic areas and might require print sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) .

Chairman, not CEO. "Chairman" is often a titular rather than executive position in Pakistan. Furthermore, surely this is inheriting notability from the company? If there is an article about the bank itself then just redirect/merge this one to that. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree, and would add that that distinction is not peculiar to Pakistan.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

oops, my error--but the actual status would have to be determined. Sometimes the chairman is the CEO. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true. But it certainly isn't something I would assume. In the absence of such a showing.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. With so little detail I can't see this as a suitable independent article. A couple of sentences added to the article on the bank would cover the topic. Tigerboy1966 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 10 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.

[edit] Debraj_Shome

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Debraj Shome

Articles for deletion/Debraj Shome (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Debraj_Shome" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not a notable person or acievements. There are many doctors out there with much better credentials. Haleyscomet2 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Haleyscomet2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 23. Snotbot t • c » 19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Is an Autobiographycal try. Thundersport (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Thundersport has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Paintballxtreme. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:57, 30 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?} 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete non-notable advert. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep Nominator offers no valid rationale for deletion; the issue is not the subject's "credentials" but whether he satisfies Wikipedia criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. He does NOT meet the academic standard; his publications are few and citations minimal. However, he appears to meet WP:BIO due to multiple articles about him in the Times of India [55] [56] [57] and other publications [58] [59]. I am uncomfortable that some of these articles tout unproven, unpublished technologies, but Wikipedia standards suggest that this degree of national publicity makes the subject notable, whether or not I approve of everything he does. MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment: note that the nominator is an WP:SPA whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to nominate this article for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

Delete: Advertisement and non-notable. X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Less/ not important at all, this article should be deleted. Anubhab91 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Allen (media)

(Find sources: "Bruce Allen (media)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article fails WP:N & WP:GNG Fumitol|talk|cont 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 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?} 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability in this puff piece. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Bienstock

(Find sources: "Lee Bienstock" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No major notability since at the end of the show that he had not won, but no current third-party sources. Therefore, it fails the present notability requirements. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 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?} 17:05, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. No separate notability from the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Antoine Beaussant

(Find sources: "Antoine Beaussant" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article is strongly written as an advertisement or resume. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are primary (press releases or financially connected websites) or are not reliable (see fredofrest.org). v/r - T P 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards keeping and cleaning it up. I don't know much about French media, but it seems like he gets a decent amount of hits on Google news. It looks to me like he might just meet WP:GNG: [60][61][62]. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 21 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?} 13:48, 27 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?} 14:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep I am not going to say we should delete an article about a French national working in France who has an article in both French and German Wikipedias. True, each Wikipedia has its own standards, but for BLPS, the standards at both of these are much narrower than ours. Judging it in its own right, a sufficiently notable president of a major company, with adequate references. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

[edit] Businesspeople Proposed deletion

Jonathan Ball (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)

Andy Allen (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
David Donaldson and the Faith Based Initiative (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Michael Davis (magazine publisher) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Tony Matthew (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

for occasional archiving

Basil Demeroutis (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
Chris P. Tomaras (via WP:PROD on 24 November 2007) G12 speedy (copyvio)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

Contents

[edit] Business

[edit] Seattle FilmWorks

[edit] La Pyramide

[edit] Tchai-Ovna

[edit] Simpli Software Inc.

[edit] Organizational configuration

[edit] EDIFECS

[edit] WE'AR

[edit] Dion Global Solutions Limited

[edit] Lawson Software

[edit] Sienna Biotec

[edit] Sensory, Inc.

[edit] Four Corners Books

[edit] SOGWAP

[edit] Softworks Limited

[edit] Delphix

[edit] Uniblue Systems Limited

[edit] Sesame Software

[edit] World Research Group

[edit] Institute for International Research

[edit] Shutts & Bowen

[edit] Special K Software

[edit] TMX Finance

[edit] Rouse Properties

[edit] DST Global

[edit] Gospo-Fella Entertainment

[edit] GEMS Education

[edit] Hoover (cyclecar)

[edit] Doejo

[edit] Acero

[edit] Pilz GmbH & Co. KG

[edit] Truveris

[edit] BestPrice

[edit] Walter Alexander Coachbuilders

[edit] Stagecoach in Hants & Surrey

[edit] Stagecoach in the South Downs

[edit] Stagecoach in Hampshire

[edit] Free Independent Traveler

[edit] Mailstorage

[edit] Myhomepage

[edit] LSTI

[edit] Grasshopper (company)

[edit] Sal's Pizza (Dallas)

[edit] Zindagi Games

[edit] Element 9 (music)

[edit] Storyway

[edit] Innovation Park (Pennsylvania State University)

[edit] University of Dreams

[edit] Hewan Amharic Software

[edit] Dmoz Pakistan

[edit] Parc Place Systems

[edit] Process improvement

[edit] Victoria Hall Limited

[edit] Business service provider

[edit] SGS Industrial Services

[edit] Dexetra

[edit] Whistles

[edit] TFG Sports

[edit] Cause + Affect

[edit] Great Hotels of the World

[edit] Zubed

[edit] Datamatics Global Services

[edit] Nawaz Rice Engineering

[edit] Necessary Records

[edit] Live Here Now

[edit] Grow My Media

[edit] NewCom International

[edit] Volt Workforce Solutions

[edit] Linkcycle

[edit] Square Peg Round Hole Records

[edit] Business Proposed deletions

[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Mitzi McGilvray

[edit] JahSun

[edit] Peter J. Arduini

[edit] Enrico Pallazzo

[edit] Bunmi Akinyemiju

[edit] Barry Ellsworth