Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:30, 27 June 2010

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. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

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 merge to Apple Inc.. –MuZemike 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Technologies

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

I couldn't find significant coverage in/by reliable sources to indicate notability, all I found was [1], which is really more about the fact that Apple was buying a company. —mono 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apple Inc.. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concur to the above. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. JForget 00:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kutmusic

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

This article was deleted in 2009 (see User_talk:Djbatman#Proposed deletion of Kutmusic, and so far in 2010, I have yet to find any significant coverage of this label. There are no reliable sources listed, and the third reference listed doesn't mention the label whatsoever. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another record label with no coverage to of it's own indicate notability. Codf1977 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No/few reliable sources. Possible conflict of interest. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. effectively a prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spa & Golf Resort Sveti Martin

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a promotional article (although not explicitly so). Quasihuman (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. JForget 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, article does not assert notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references given only prove the company's appearance on some gov't lists. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I had put a {{Prod2}} on the article … totally fails WP:CORP. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another producer of non-consumer software: They produce software Energy management software, Energy monitoring and targeting software and Carbon accounting systems. No indication of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. The sources found by altering the search terms swung this in the direction of a keep, though only just. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Turtle Records

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This record label has no significant coverage I can find, and when I tried to speedy it, it was declined on the basis that it was founded by a notable person, however this argument isn't valid in that notability isn't inherited. So therefore I am bringing this up before a community discussion on this label. I only came up with 9 Ghits after weeding out all the Wikipedia hits. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP - agree no mater what the company does or who starts it, it needs significant coverage of it own and this does not exist in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (what else ;-) Reasons (as I stated in the discussion page to that article): ... and I always thought Wikipedia being an encyclopedia where information is provided even for things not available elsewhere on the internet and thus helping people who search for information about little known facts - but that may have been my false belief (counting "GHits" instead of arguing seems to be the thing to do ;-) ----- My motivation for building a "Country Turtle Records" article (stub) has been simply because the sister record label "Mamlish Records" dealing with Don Kent's blues output should be supplemented by its sister label founded to release country music ... Both existing articles (Don Kent, Mamlish Records - which I built in 2006) have never since been doubted for their notability !!! (I apologize for my English - this is not my mother tongue) ------- Meanwhile I have added a Country Turtle Records discography to my American Music site [2] - so in case those wise here folk decide against Wikipedia "notability", people wondering about information about CTR may find what they're searching for via google ... Just wait until the google robots did their job ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment Wikipedia isn't about keeping "little known facts". I recommend that you read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS to understand why this music label is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. In the case of the link you mentioned on your site, unfortunately that cannot be used as it is not considered a reliable source. The Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles have been tagged with the appropriate issues as they do not appear to have established notability either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just did a search of Google and Google Books and came up with nothing. If it is a real label, it is amazingly obscure. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Search for "Country Turtle" not "Country Turtle Records". See my vote below. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had a strong deja vu feeling and just found out why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Post_War_Blues where you'll find further arguments for a "Keep" for small record labels like CTR StefanWirz (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC) ... but you may just as well start another notability/deletion procedure for that label, ArcAngel ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You may (or may not) want to have a look at the three references (found by googling ;-) I meanwhile added to embellish the article: 1. Documenting the American South: Dorsey Dixon, 1897-1968 [3], 2. Folk Music Performer Index [4], 3. Patrick Huber: Linthead stomp: the creation of country music in the Piedmont South [5] and at the four notable (i.e. with a Wikipedia article) artists I added to the label's roster: The Dixon Brothers, Posey Rorer, North Carolina Ramblers, Rabbit Brown !!! StefanWirz (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile found out two more "notables" to the roster: Bascom Lamar Lunsford and Blind Andy; StefanWirz (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have lookd at thoes links but cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records so I do not see how they help - please read WP:INHERITED. Codf1977 (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just search the resp. files for "country turtle" and you'll find what's individually written there about that label; The first reference quotes Pat Conte's liner notes to CT-6000, the second lists all tracks of CT-6001 and the third lists both CT-6000 and CT-6002 as part of The Dixon Brother's discography --- not too difficult a task, ain't it ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how what you listed above qualifies as reliable sources containing significant coverage. I don't consider disographies to be "significant coverage". Perhaps you could enlighten me? Because I just don't see it. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to "enlighten" you with some facts you obviously never heard of: 1. Country Turtle was the first label reissuing the Dixon Brothers (notability not to be doubted - please read their article) pre-war recordings on vinyl, 2. Record labels of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s naturally cannot bring forth "GHits" the way labels of the computer age do; and, btw: Meanwhile I added references with "reliable sources containing significant coverage" to the Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles, so claiming those as non notable is yesterday's newspaper ;-) --- Sorry if I may have failed to reference this correctly, but I'm not a Wikipedia expert (and never will, even if you permanently advise me to read this and that of those here guidelines - I do this and up to now have always found them to be interpretable in one or another way - they just don't have anything about "Country Turtle Records" ;-), but one of American Music ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue her is one of "is Country Turtle Records notable ?" and to decide that WP has long standing poilices, guidelines and conventions. In the case of companies (see WP:CORP) which says "[a company] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. ". None of the links you have provided show that level of coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codf1977, so you meanwhile found 'em (in your previous message: "cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records"), but can't accept 'em - that's quite another story ;-) Let's see what this here "discussion" brings forth from other participants than the usual crowd ... StefanWirz (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please do not confuse "mentions" with "coverage". Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you search for "Country Turtle" LP -wikipedia (not "Country Turtle Records") you'll find 10 Google Books hits and over 50 general Google hits (ignoring blogs and articles about turtles!). I believe there is sufficient coverage of this record label in secondary sources to establish notability. For example here, here and here. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the links you posted and all of them only mention the name, nothing else. This is not significant coverage, just trivial mentions. Yoenit (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Bruce1ee. The Dixon Brothers' material is fascinating and notable. The history of country music and blues is a history of small record labels. Mick gold (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its fascinating" is not a valid argument and you make no attempt to show the record is notable Yoenit (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the article is accurate, it appears that this label has published some interesting artists, so the article may provide some information that is not easily found on the web. This information may be useful to a future researcher. DougHill (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way to verify whether it is accurate as it has no reliable sources and "being useful" is a typical Argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Yoenit (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the problem with the sources (especially the books) cited on the page? DougHill (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing wrong with the books, but they don't cover any of the information given in the lead. How do I know they were set up by Don Kent? or that it was the first label to release the Dixon Brothers' prewar material on vinyl? You need sources for that. Yoenit (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This simply fails wikipedia notability and verifiability criteria. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate that this article be kept as it is about a notable historical resource -- iff those statements can be verified. DS (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you see Country Turtle as a "notable historical resource"? Yoenit (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it is preserving early recorded music which was originally recorded in a much more perishable format. DS (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect, this seems an argument based on "it contains valuable information", another argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The criteria to be notable for an organization are given at WP:ORG and I fail to see how Country Turtle meets them. Please also note that if this is such an important historical resource, than why did nobody publish a proper book about them yet? Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please take into account that I meanwhile added to the article two (hopefully reliable ;-) secondary sources as references: 1. allmusic.com [6], which has a review of the first CT album of The Dixon Brothers ; 2. A review in the John Edwards Memorial Foundation Quarterly of the second CT album "Gambler's Lament" [7]; you may also have a look at the "Discographical data" included in The Dixon Brothers' article to verify the fact, that CT was the first label to re-release their prewar recordings (referenced by Patrick Huber: Linthead stomp: the creation of country music in the Piedmont South) [8] StefanWirz (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not gonna dispute the reliability of these sources, but if they even mention Country turtle records themselfs it is a trivial mention. For example, the Linthead stomp book says: "Albums and CD reissues of the Dixons brothers music include Beyond black smoke (Country turtle 6000);Rambling and Gambling(Country turtle 6002),[further summation of other albums]."

I am not familiar with classification systems for music, but (Country turtle 6000) & (Country turtle 6002) seem to be the classification names of the two albums, not a mention of Country Turtle Records itself.

If we look at the Allmusic, very nice the album is reviewed there, but Country turtle is not mentioned in the review, so I don't see why it is relevant. Keep in mind notability is not inherited. The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD.

With regards to "Linthead stomp" being a source for CT being the first label re-release their prewar recordings, I find this borderline original research. Linthead does not say explicitely say they were the first to do so, just that they did. It also doesn't say it was prewar material. The statement " Country turtle released two albums from the Dixon brothers" seems to be all you can get from that source. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still I have an ambivalent feeling thinking about what nice discographies I'd be able to create if'n I wasted (?) my time in this here nitpickin' process - but I admit it's also challenging - so let's go on: What about that JEMF Quarterly review I added as reference ? You forgot (?) to comment on that ... StefanWirz (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it later, but here it is again: "The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD." Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just found out that user:StefanWirz posted notifications on the talkpages of 9 editors about this AFD, 3 of which voted keep in result. The messages themselves were neutral, but as AFD's are frequently archived with less than 4 four votes this smells like votestacking to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You surely have noticed, that I not only asked in a "neutral" way, but even encouraged those I asked to contradict ("could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?!"), since my motivation is to find out if my views (as a relative non-insider of all those Wikipedia rules) are perhaps completely wrong --- and one of those I asked just did that: Contradict[[9]] my opinion !!! StefanWirz (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{notavote}} to the top; I agree it has the fragrance of canvasing to me; posting anything (other than a WP AfD template) which has a link to a AfD and ask someone to look at it is IMO. Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I didn't know that there is such a thing as an "WP AfD template" and I fear I don't have the time to ever learn about all those Wikipedia specifica. StefanWirz (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I already state I did not have a problem with the tone of the message, but it does nothing that you contacted 8 people (friends?) who did not seem in any way involved with the article in question. (a case could be made for contacting Bruce1ee, as he created the related Dorsey Dixon article). Yes one of them disagreed with you and another posted on your talkpage [10], but they wisely stayed away from the discussion here. Doughill and Mick Gold on the other hand showed up here and voted keep based on "its interesting" and "may be useful" Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StefanWirz and I have communicated in the past on Talk pages of Wikipedia on questions relating to discographies of country and blues records. I contributed my vote because I believe that the Dixon Brothers are significant figures in the history of country music. Anyone seeking to understand the discographical history of the Dixon Brothers would benefit from the presence of Country Turtle article in Wikipedia. You may find this argument unconvincing, but I would ask you not to breach WP:AGF. Mick gold (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is here that notability is not inherited. If they are so important to the understanding of the Dixon brothers, feel free to include a bit about them in the Dixon brothers article. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I selected those I sent my question for advice to those people who - on my talk page [11] - have expressed their appreciation of my activities here at Wikipedia and elsewhere and thus gave me a sign that they care about the same issues I occupy myself with --- if you like to call those "friends" you may do so (even though I have nothing else to do with them - but in times of Facebook the term "friends" obviously doesn't mean much anymore ;-) Since I know very few Wikipedia users whose primary field of activity is "AFD", "notability", etc., those were not on my list --- But you surely will not hold against me that I posted my question about discographies as "reliable sources" at [12], or would you ? I'm striving for (new) wisdom, not to impose the little I got on others ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meanwhile I have added one or two references to the article, and - since I don't know if I referenced the statement "CT was the first label to release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings" in a proper way - the following explanations for those "not familiar with classification systems for music": 1. All prewar Dixon Brothers tracks are listed in [13]; 2. The track lists of CT-6000 and CT-6002 are given at [14]; 3. By comparing all the tracks listed in the first source with the CT track lists of the second source you may easily find out, that CT re-released some of the prewar (not postwar) recordings; 4. The information about all the vinyl and CD re-releases of the Dixon Brothers' prewar material can be found at [15]; 5. Knowing the release dates of all the re-releases (CT 6001 in 1973, all others later) it becomes clear that Country Turtle was the first label to re-release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings - n'est-ce pas? This may sound like "original research" --- For me it's just putting three and three together ! StefanWirz (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem simple to you, but it is an obvious case of synthesis of published material that advances a position, which indeed a form of original research. Also, in this case source number 2 (your own website) is not a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars.com

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

Passes A7 for "having the largest inventory" (presumably of calendars). Google returns nothing substantial, and the one source used in the article, internetretailer.com, states on its listing, "If you would like to be considered for inclusion, please contact the Top 500 research team." Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reference in the article doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:CORP, and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up any coverage in reliable sources that would indicate notability either. I acknowledge that this is a tricky company to Google, and if someone can find appropriate sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyesol

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

~~Company which fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There's significant coverage in The Age, but not in any other independent reliable sources.Claritas § 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep seems like it has pretty significant coverage to me [16]. Artw (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually found quite a bit of non-trivial coverage from just a google search of dyesol -wikipedia as well as a google news search. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, you instantly see coverage appearing in plenty. Just read the titles and the summaries of the ones up top, and that should be convincing enough. Dream Focus 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like plenty of reliable sources exist. The article has been flagged for rescue, so hopefully it will be improved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite clearly notable, I probably was a a little too eager to nominate there... Claritas § 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorld Motion Pictures

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced. I've tried to find sources to establish notability and to verify some of the films they are supposedly connected with and have been entirely unsuccessful. I believe the article may be a recreation of The DreamWorld Company which was speedily deleted as not asserting importance. I don't think that criterion applies (this version may be an expansion on that original article which perhaps did fit the criteria), but nevertheless I'm struggling to find good cause for keeping this. AJ Cham 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 "DreamWorld aslo Produces/Distributes Animated Films, mostly with Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios and DreamWorks Animation." So that makes the actual distributor of Disney products in India, The Walt Disney Company India Pvt. Ltd. seem like they distribute zero films from their corporate parent at all? No inbound links to the article, no notability, it distributes films from two studios that are putting it lightly, competitors, and has a name that DreamWorks would sue them out of existence for carrying? Incredibly blatant hoax. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability - a small film distribution studio which does not explain why the subject is notable. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Additional Find sources find lots of stuff about a theme park[17] and only one article something called "DreamWorld Pictures Entertainment"[18]. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Beginners, LLC

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

Queried AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator offers no reason for deletion. If he is alleging non-notability, it looks notable to me. The article provides many links to reviews of this book series in Reliable Sources like the Boston Globe and the Village Voice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As suggested on the talk page, the article might be better titled after the book series rather than the company. It is the books which are notable; in fact, the books predate the company. Could move to For Beginners (books) or For Beginners (book series), something along those lines. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no apparent reason for deletion. The article is somewhat sound and there are a few reliable references. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Education Group

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

The article reads as a self-promoting advertisement. No references are provided, nor could I locate any WP:RS suggesting this company would meet WP:N. Additionally, article seems to have been made by a WP:SPA. Listed CEO also wikilinks to a soap opera character so perhaps this is an elaborate joke? Transmissionelement (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing it to remove any material that appears to be promotional or loathing of the brand, but I can assure you that by no means is this some kind of joke. Victoria Newman also happens to be a very common name, and there is no relation to the soap opera actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Appears fine now. Make aware of any promotional flaws that you see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGreenwichEd (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is unsourced, not notable, and seems a clear case of self-promotion. Becritical (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant spam: the entire thing reads like a sales brochure. (Uncertain what this has to do with a soap opera actress, and I suspect one comment may have gone astray.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously referred to as Greenwich Education and Prep. Google that phrase. But overhaul completed of promotional aspect. Revise comments if change is seen. --JamesGreenwichEd (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)--JamesGreenwichEd (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: nothing like WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no example of passing notability. Smerdis, the CEO's name is "Victoria Newman"; when the article was nominated, it linked that name, and "Victoria Newman" is the name of a soap opera character. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability? It's extremely notable in Greenwich, CT and the surrounding communities. It's unfair to define notability on a national scale. There's no reason this page shouldn't exist, since pages for prep schools on New England appear, as well as private schools in CT, of which it is a member of both. To revoke this page would be saying that it is OK for similar schools like Brunswick to have a page, but wrong for Greenwich Education group to have its own page, which would be unfair in every sense of the word.--69.121.232.78 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 69.121.232.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a school, just a private tutoring company. Non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluent, Inc.

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a subsidiary of a parent corp which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANSYS, Inc.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should probably be merged with its parent company now. -Lonedrops (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSYS, Inc

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the following article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluent, Inc. a product of Ansys - is also up for deletion and should be combined discussion, but I am not sure how to do that. Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the article itself is actually ANSYS, Inc. (with a period) the links above are just to the redirect. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I vote no. If you have a question on citations then the external link is available. ANSYS is a fortune 1000 company that is a major cog in both the regional and national economies. Not sure how this would be a legitimate candidate for deletion, I better check Walt Disney Company, General Electric and Simon Property Group now before they too are also deemed unencylopedic. Hholt01 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this article is being targeted. As with many articles on mid-sized companies, most of the info that's available is the basics: the type of stuff that comes from a business magazine or a company website. While it needs improved, this goes for a massive number of articles.Mr. Vitale (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint on why the nomination: targeted deletion probably from a competitor of those companies. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple possible sources can be found by the above search links to establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be rewritten. The company is notable from searches.Lonedrops (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs to be improved, but topic meets WP:ORG. Dewritech 06:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation America

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

Company which fails WP:CORP, only sources read like press releases. Contested prod. Claritas § 08:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business offers dedicated server hosting, voice over IP [VOIP], bandwidth and IP services and managed virtual private networks to enterprises of the small to medium sized variety...., another non-consumer Internet firm in a crowded field. Also obviously promotional: they have cutting edge data centers and joined in the eco-friendly movement too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No independent sourcing found. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locstein

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

Non-notable firm with no refererences to establish notability, with potential WP:ADVERT and WP:COI issues |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the only reference I could find, called seriously into question the legitimacy of Locstein. See an investigative piece from the Mirror: "'Leading' money firm Locstein Asset takes on lying cheat Matt James." From my own research I could find very little to establish that this is a credible organization. It does not appear to be registered as would a typical financial services organization in the UK. I am very skeptical and noted that this fail on a number of other fronts as well|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Floor Interactive

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

I believe this may fail notability requirements regarding organisations. It was saved from CSD because of "two Ohio Interactive Awards in 2010" - however I am unsure as to whether this equates notability, as these awards are just for the best company website in 2010 in Ohio. This does not strike me as that notable, and I seek consensus at AfD. Negative g-hits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete hardly any coverage [19]. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards for website design do not confer notability on the company as a whole. Loves Macs (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their website winning a comparitively minor award doesn't help them meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Diesel Technologies

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

Non notable training company/organisation, also seems to be like advertising the company/organisation on Wikipedia rather then encyclopaedic notability. (This was Prod'ed but removed by the editor) Bidgee (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially speedy-deleted, but after several edit-conflicts restored it so the AfD can run its course. No indication that the company has any notability other than as a background for politicians. Acroterion _(talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per TransporterMan. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears that sections of the article are WP:COPYPASTE from, at least, 3 of the sources listed. Can remove the cut/paste sections, but not sure how much of the article would be left. It may qualify for WP:CSD G12, as it needs a complete rewrite. So far, the article copies verbatim some of this, this and this. Akerans (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Lakeville Motor Express. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeville motor express

There is another page for this entry it is Lakeville Motor Express. This page was created incorrectly and a new page was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketolson (talk • contribs) 2010/06/15 19:31:29

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect ~~as per A7, no indication of notability~~ to Lakeville Motor Express as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony 19

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

fails WP:CORP, looks like an ad. can't find significant coverage [20]. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable company; fails WP:N and WP:CORP as it has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third party sources. Appears to be an advert type posting, as article creator claims to also be the creator of its logo in his uploading of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch Accounting

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an ad and most of its sources are its own website. not much in gnews [21]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom - fails WP:CORP - promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green zebra adventures

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

Creator removed speedy G11 nomination. Article has since been edited several times but still makes no claims to notability or even WP:GNG. Essentially promotional in tone and content. Fenix down (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No indication of significance whatsoever -clearly falls under A7. Suggest an admin delete it now per WP:SNOWBALL. Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Promotional. No notability shown. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer!
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thinly-veiled advertisement for a non-notable tour company. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Technologies

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

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

Non notable software company, Fails WP:CORP - the only coverage is not significant, most of it reproductions of press releases. Also adding XML Studio it's main product, article is promotional and also lack of coverage (even less than the links about may indicate as there looks like there are two products called XML Studio) so fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also note strongly promotional tone: Liquid XML Data Binding has grown in popularity due to its support from all the major languages and its ability to deal with complex schemas.... The free edition is extremely popular in schools and universities, its split code/diagram views speed the learning of the complex XSD standard.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator needs to read the guideline that an article isn't spam merely because its subject is a commercial body. Copyediting would be useful and if the time of copyeditors wasn't continually wasted in farcical AfDs, it might even get done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but XML Studio reads like a sales brochure, product lacks any form of significant coverage and as a result fails WP:GNG, as for the company again no significant coverage, falis WP:GNG - I am unable to see what any amount of Copyediting could help with the notability of both the company and it's software. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little independent coverage so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

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

Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product "Sandra". Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also obvious advertising for yet another business to business back-office tech company: a provider of computer analysis, diagnostic and benchmarking software. The flagship product, known as "SANDRA", was launched in 1997 and has become notably popular in its field..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiSoft should be an instantly recognizable name to anyone who has opened a computing magazine at some point during the past decade. The article needs improving. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SiSoft SANDRA. Their flagship product is notable in fact, however, I don't think the company deserves an article of its own for a single notable product. A redirect to an article on the product seems acceptable, too. Nageh (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Their flagship product is a well-known tool used for system diagnostics. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Some Wiki Editor. Also 2,070,000 hits on Google. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flesh out with information about their flagship product "Sandra". Coverage is not particularly in-depth, but is counterbalanced by the breadth. A google book search provides a lot sources that provide small writeups including Leo Laporte declaring it one his favourites. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For several years Sisoft-Sandra was one of those tools installed on my one or other pc. I don't know if Sisoft or Sandra is more worthy of an article but there is certainly some cultural and historical significance here.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Lounge

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

A chain with only seven outlets after five years trading. Two sources, the first of which is clearly taken from a press release, the second is far from being a dispassionate review (the author appears to be a True Believer in kook health food, note comments on "memory booster"). Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP--Sodabottle (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickcart

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

Software for creating on-line shops. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unreferenced. Sub-minimal claim to historic, technical, or cultural significance: the very first Shopping Cart code ever written using the Cold Fusion development language on the Internet. Obvious advertising: the code was completely overhauled to take advantage of new technologies.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... contains a step-by-step walk-through of how to setup your store. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN software. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RElements

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

In good faith - possible advertising or non notability? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: both advertising and non-notable. This is obvious soliciting of funds --- rElements have experienced an very high growth rate since its foundation. Google News Archive finds only one Experian report and a bunch of typos. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article "Rafael Gracioso Martins, a young entrepreneur who worked and developed Chemical Vapor Deposition chambers for producing advanced composites...", and the only contributing author is rgmcorp. Coincidence? I think not. Blatant self-promotion, in direct contravention of policy.

-- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 13:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of independent sources is a strong indication of lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Workspace Management

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

I feel this article must duplicate another, and possibly is just a definition for a category that's already on Wikipedia. In any case, there is no source here, and nothing worth expanding. I think the user created the page in good faith, but it seems this information is redundant redundant with other information on this encyclopedia. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator whose account bears the name of the product manager for a product using this neologism. Empty Buffer (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User Workspace Management refers to the delivery of IT services to an end user that are relevant to or needed by that end user at a certain time, date, location and on a certain computing device. Examples of these IT services are software applications, printers, data, network shares or personal settings. Huh? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgate Technology

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

Contested PROD - Company fails WP:CORP no significant coverage - see here Codf1977 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable coverage to meet the criteria for WP:CORP. -- role^player 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A a developer of data collection software, yet another rather ordinary tech business with no claim to historical, technical, or cultural importance, using Wikipedia as a free ad host. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARES Corporation

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

Not a notable consulting business. Contested proposed deletion. References provided are internal, based on press releases, profile pages, or simply quote business personnel as sources. Google News yields press releases and routine announcements. No indication that this business "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you take time to even read the article? This is a very notable business that is having a significant impact on society, science, and economics. Please take time to read the article, building a plant that will produce 15 million gallons of biodiesel fuel is notable in itself. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article when I nominated were: a link to a company website, a dead link to a press release, another dead link to an online "community" site, a local story about their failure to build the biodiesel plant as planned, and four more links to the company website. What I found when I looked myself was not more promising. I don't think I miscategorized the sources given. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the references, then you can address them through editing the page or proposing the edits on the discussion page. Issues with references does not mean the subject of the article is non-notable, that is causation. Instead of jumping to an AFD, recommending improvements to the page is preferable in accordance with WP policy. This is especially true when the article in question is 3.5 years old. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Jimmy Wales put it, we "attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something." The question is whether this consulting business with a few government contracts has any long term historical significance. I looked, and found nothing better than what was in the article, which does not appear to make this rise to that level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article needs to be improved but according to [22] it is notable. Dewritech (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NASA reference barely tops three sentences. Not really coverage, the paragraph in question merely reiterates that the company exists, they're a small business contractor for the ISS and that NASA likes the work they're doing for them. 2 says you, says two 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to do what your doing. You can find a small clause in WP:RS to discredit almost any link out there. This link may not have significant coverage, but others do. This reference, in conjunction with others, proves the company is notable. NASA is a very well-respected government entity and to be 1 out of 3 companies to receive an award from them causes ARES Corporation to stand out in their niche. The company is notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are standards of coverage that are supposed to be uniformly applied to all references. 2 says you, says two 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company is not notable, and the original author is on an obvious campaign to promote the company and its products on Wikipedia. (All of these articles are under AfD discussions.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for 3 years. You need to work on assuming good faith. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of an article has absolutely, positively nothing to do with whether or not an article should be deleted. You have created or done major work on articles related to the company which are promotional in nature. Assuming good faith is one thing, but ignoring a pattern of action is quite another. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles being "promotional in nature" is your opinion. I mentioned that the article had been around for 3 years so that you would pick up on the fact that i'm not the original author of this page, which you still haven't figured out. "I worked on articles related to the company"... obviously. This is a result of me interpreting a WP Guideline the wrong way and branching out this companies products into seperate articles, instead of keeping it on the same article. "ignoring a pattern of action". I'm not asking you to ignore your insticts, but rather your inherent bias to that any attempt to work on an article must mean i'm associated with the company and must mean i'm trying to promote it. Which neither is true. See my previous response to your comment on the Avert Page, first attempt at a major re-write + WP's random article feature = This Bsanders246 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but you can understand when one person works on a series of article about a company and its products, there is often an attempt to promote that company in violation of WP guidelines. I've seen it too many times here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)

I understand where your coming from. It probably wasn't the best idea to attempt my first re-write on a company. At least I learned a few things about notability/reliable sources and the deletion process. Bsanders246 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. no consensus for deleting - any merging can be discussed at the talk page JForget 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placid Casual

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP, only claim to any form of notability is that of association. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Super Furry Animals. Surely option other than deletion can be considered?--Michig (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can - and don't call me Shirly... The worst case option for this is to redirect to the bands' article, per point 4. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"before nominating an article for deletion" - I like the sound of that.--Michig (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the label has put out albums by numerous bands, most of whom are notable. By the nominator's logic no record companies would have articles. Cavie78 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge at the very least. The label has taken on notable bands, and WP:INHERITED is not really a valid counter-argument here. Being the record label and essentially the contracting agency behind a notable group of musicians is different than if this were an article about, say, one of the band member's sister. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily notable, was this nominated as a joke or something? Jeni ^(talk) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. no one in favor of deletion MINUS the nom JForget 14:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Johnson Records

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a record label, and an important one from the 1980s. If it had been run as a 'company' it may not have gone out of business. Ron Johnson Records was one of the most significant (genuine) independent labels of the 1980s, contributing five tracks to the NME's era-defining C86 compilation, and releasing 34 records of which 12 were hits on the independent chart. Like most 1980s labels, the bulk of the coverage that exists is in print magazines such as NME, Melody Maker, etc., that are not available online. Label owner Dave Parsons was included in International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 based on this label - the book lists Ron Johnson Records as winning the award for Independent Label of the Year in 1986. Google Books shows plenty of sources, most without preview available. The fansite linked in the article is by Rhodri Marsden - journalist for The Independent and keyboard player in Scritti Politti. The label's sound is still being identified as an influence today (see this). Deleting this would be really silly.--Michig (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Part of a series of bad faith nominations by this user. Jeni ^(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 no consensus. One strong keep rationale + 3 "per nom" deletes = no consensus with leave to renominate in a few weeks to produce better discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISLA Bank

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches find more results for a holiday cottage in Scotland. Restricting the search to the Philippines just shows directory listings and nothing to establish WP:notability noq (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Holiday cottage in Scotland sounds interesting DRosin (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep - Although the evidence isn't quite so strong as I'd like. The notability criteria should be out of WP:COMPANY and not just the general vague notability preference here. A Google test may not necessarily be the best possible source of information in this case, and I'm unfortunately not familiar with sources in the Philippines to provide a more useful source of information to help out in this case. With the only current "source" of information being the official website, I find that to be dubious, but I'm quite certain that there are some additional sources of information for this institution that could be found to meet the raw sourcing requirements. The real hook, something that makes this more than just another bank, is something that would be useful for the article. In this sense, notability is the issue and if something more about the bank being "established from a rich Filipino heritage" could be defined or expanded... what heritage they are really talking about in the article could make this something useful. At the moment, it reads like an advertisement and not something encyclopedic. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy deletion tag was removed first by the article's author, and then after it was restored, by an editor with no other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Michael Corrente. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verdi Corrente Productions

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

This article has existed a few weeks now, with multiple problems. Summarize: reads link an advertisement, no notability, nothing links here, no reliable sources, and author has edited only this page and Inkubus, which leads me to believe this is a single-purpose account. No non-trivial third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on enhancing the page's objectivity as well as providing links and references for the company. It seems that it is a professional production outfit. I agree the page needs work.User:HarvardGenius

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable information to Michael Corrente. All I can find are press releases and passing mention. This company has not yet released a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan James

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8 was to list at AfD for potential notability issues. This is a procedural, neutral nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is one of the UK's best-known bookmakers, as a cursory glance at the Google News search linked above will confirm. I'm flabbergasted that we didn't have an article on such a notable subject until a couple of weeks ago, and disappointed, but not surprised (but disappointed that I am not surprised), that the kneejerk reaction to the creation of this article was to nominate it for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The article needs expanding and tidying up, but Stan James is a major company that has been sponsoring world championships such as this for years and has much coverage. Nuttah (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is difficult to get at the coverage due to their sponsorship of high profile events clogging up the results. However, they are a well known company in the UK. If you dig deeper in the gnews results, you get stuff like this, which is decent coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article does not state notability.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the nom is a 'neutral' procedural nomination which logically entails that your 'per-nom' vote become a neutral vote. You may want to read the discussion before placing your vote. A brief look at the above tools shows that the topic is clearly notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now expanded the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having said at DRV (without being able to see the article) that the speedy deletion should be overturned, I was sadly disappointed by the article when it was revealed. It scarcely made any attempt at claiming notability. It has now been considerably improved and makes credible notability claims, backed with references. Thincat (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bop Cassettes

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

Record label, who may have had some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 5 years. Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember reading about Bop in music mags back in the late 80s. This coverage exists, it just needs someone to dig it out of the archives. The label had several releases in the upper reaches of the UK Independent Chart. The label was discussed in Derek Wynne's book The Culture industry: the arts in urban regeneration and also in Steve Redhead's The end of the century party: youth and pop towards 2000. Releases also included the (fairly classic) Manchester North of England compilation. I believe the Scam label was also a subsidiary of Bop - releases included Dub Sex, Social Kaos. An important label from a key era in the Manchester music scene.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added one source.--Pink Bull 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Business Proposed deletions

Please hide this entire section when empty

Fringe economics

Businesspeople

John Bamlet Smallman

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

A successful but thoroughly nonnotable businessman --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Shenker

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

This article only concerns a corporate lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant and independent coverage. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in July by a WP:SPA.

. There is an independent Wall Street Journal Article, but little other than that in terms of independent sources. A Business Insider article is short, minor, with only superficial coverage, and the NYT source just has brief mentions as well. GuardianH (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with analysis above, a senior partner at a law firm and now into management with the firm, nothing very notable that I can see. WSJ is the best source, rest are name drops as explained. I don't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview [23] by a Forbes contributor, and it's about the best that I could find. A !redirect to the law firm would be ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Samad Dawood

AfDs for this article:

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

Little has changed in his fortunes since the last AFD eight months ago. He's still a successful and civic-minded businessman from a prominent Pakistani business family, and has worked at a high level for some notable companies. But on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. I couldn't find SIGCOV of him in English or Urdu, just passing mentions in articles about the companies and organisations he's worked for, nothing to bring it up to the standard of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If only he had appeared in a few dramas, even in tiny roles, his BLP might have been easily saved from deletion under WP:NACTOR! But it’s ironic that someone so important in Pakistan's business community doesn’t have enough coverage that meets GNG. Anyway, I’ll hold off on voting for now. PS. No offense to the nominator Wikishovel, who also has legitimate reasons for taking it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not a slam dunk; outside of the Engro connection, there are no RS that discuss him and we only have source 13 that is helpful. Rest are yellow per Source Highlighter, so of moderate reliability. I still don't see/find much else we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article follows the guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as it demonstrates significant coverage in both Pakistani and international media, meeting WP:RS. As per WP:BASIC, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Please feel free to check the sources, they meet all the mentioned criteria. Crosji (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reuters is RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable obscure business executive. Already deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samad Dawood. I suggest to WP:SALT the topic because Dawood family won't stop paying these UPEs. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Elor

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

Typical promotional article about a business founder. Every source cited in this article is affiliated with the subject in one way or another, or is not about the biography subject. Citations either stem from Santa Cruz Works (his company is a member of their accelerator program) or coverage from University of California, Santa Cruz sources, where he went to school. Other sources are actually about his sister, Amit Elor, who is an olympian and do not mention the subject of the article. I've searched in the usual places and haven't turned up anything but more stuff from the UCSC newslatter. This person doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, so the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical entrepreneur promotion stuff, ref-bombed with half-relevent, semi-reliable sources. Nswix (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A legitimate researcher, but not passing notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Iqbal Memon

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject does not seem to be notable enough for a standalone article, and coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. 4 sources on the page and not any of them have indepth coverage on the subject. Sources are either about infamous Iqbal Mirchi or WP:ROUTINE news on Enforcement Directorate trying to declare Iqbal Mirchi's family as fugitive economic offenders. RangersRus (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Cid

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

Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hardin

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

Created by an SPA back in 2008. The only references are links to a patent (the same one, but one is the US patent filing and the other is the Canadian filing) that Hardin and others filed jointly. It also doesn't appear that Hardin was the sole VP of manufacturing in the US for Mobil, which was the reasoning years ago for a declined PROD, but the manufacturing VP for a refinery in Beaumont, Texas. A search for more refs pulls up no reliable sources to support notability. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, Missouri, and Texas. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Served in the war, went to university, worked for 40 years and retired" is about the extent of the article. Very basic information and nothing really notable found either. Seems like a routine career. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ----Kinu ^t/_c 02:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joël André Ornstein

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago, with the crux of the rationale being that the sourcing is dubious except for a 1-page article in his college's alumni magazine. 11 years later, that is still the case. Many sources are cited, but if you look at them, they are not actually independent sources about him. Several of them do not even mention him, and seem to be cited as background on his family and industry. The Yahoo one that does look like it might be a business article about him is actually just a press release. The alumni mag article is still the only possibly independent article actually about him, and if you look at it, it's a pretty thin puff piece. You could be generous and assume this is independent, significant coverage... but still, it's the only source that could be said of.

This article has all the hallmarks of paid editing. Created all at once by an account that never edited Wikipedia again, and in 10 years it's only received bot/housekeeping edits, and not a single incoming article link or content edit. But that's what happens when there's no real sources... there's just nothing to legitimately add to Wikipedia. I don't see any sources from various news searches. If a businessperson is never written about in the business press, are they really notable? I don't think so. Here2rewrite (talk)

Delete: Rationale seems reasonable, also could not find sources. Mostly seems to be a person with a good CEO career and a wealthy family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoogles (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, France, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lumbye

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

Lumbye does not meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO and does not appear to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC. The sources used on Lumbye's page are about the company Momondo, and mention him only in passing. The only source dedicated to Lumbye I can find is this short profile by Bloomberg, which is not extensive enough to establish notability. Uffda608 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Finance, and Management. Uffda608 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't meet any notability criteria. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Knöll

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

Coverage of this model is entirely limited to tabloid news, which is not WP:SIGCOV under WP:SBST, and to primary sources. ~~She appears to promote herself as Miss Croatia,~~ but she was a 2016 finalist, not the pageant winner. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, Football, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WP:BLP1E at best for getting photographed for the tabloids at the 2022 World Cup. That, and some gossip about a recent relationship, is all I can find about her online. Her business doesn't meet WP:CORP, and being an also-ran in Miss Croatia doesn't meet WP:NMODEL. Wikishovel (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: I was intrigued by your comment that she promotes herself as Miss Croatia while not having won the pageant, which seems slightly extreme, so I did some more research on this topic (and her biography in general; noting that I participated in the shwiki AfD and !voted delete), and it seems that she doesn't do that. Some sources, not her, incorrectly reported that she was Miss Croatia. So it probably isn't fair to her to make such a statement about her (without evidence).—Alalch E. 20:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. Perhaps I misread the tabloid coverage. Thanks for the correction; I'll strike my previous comment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghias Khan

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

CEO doing his job, nothing significant done by him in his corporate career. References are basically primary references (i.e. interview) or mentions in reliable references. Pakistan & Gulf Economist article is the best reference about him but an archived version reveals that it is an interview as well ([24]). Bloomberg.com database entries are not useful for notability purposes. Clearly no way near meeting WP:GNG. DeploreJames (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Engro Corporation: as the subject is known for being the CEO of Engro, one of Pakistan's largest corporations. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, there are numerous articles on corporate leaders from all over who have held key positions and become part of public discourse, like Ghias Khan from Pakistan. He has interacted with public figures, made significant contributions to the industry, and recently moved on after many years. To test notability you just needed to read/watch news the lkast few years. It's legitimate to have such an article, and the fact that it has garnered at least 50K views indicates a certain level of public interest, therefore it should not be deleted but updated. Crosji (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosji, As the creator of this BLP, I’d love to see it rescued. However, I, lack the time or perhaps the interest, to dig into sources and defend this BLP, so I voted for a redirect. But anyway please remember to avoid WP:ATA (in this case WP:POPULARPAGE) when casting votes in AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Saqib. WP:ROTM businessman, lacks direct and in-depth non-routine coverage. Interviews are not helpful to pass WP:GNG. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Huber

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional BLP of a crypto entrepreneur fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Sources in article are primary or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing more to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crypto PR items and business funding round announcements are all I find, for sourcing. What's used now isn't helpful, mostly primary or non-RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The few sources I could find aren't independent of the subject. 0xchase (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne T. Smith

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Alabama, and Texas. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I believe this eligible for soft deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. DeMayo

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

I don't know what to make of this article. Most of the sources available are marginal or sponsored or self, including for the firm, and the most reliable sources are only about disciplinary action against the attorney by the North Carolina Bar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The owner of a non-notable law firm in North Carolina with few sources to suggest WP:ANYBIO, different from all the thousands of other law firm heads. I found little in coverage other than this article in The Charlotte Observer about him being censured by the State Bar and how he narrowly avoided being suspended because of false drama. GuardianH (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Cogan-Shinder

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

Article previously deleted as "(Expired PROD, concern was: Almost every single claim is not supported by the source. Many sources are unreliable, or make only trivial mention, or a primary like interviews and press releases.)" Nothing seems to have changed since. Refbombing seems to be mainly low-quality sources, largely involving regurgitation of press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find anything about this business person in my search for sources, article reads like a resume. Simple confirmation of business activities, getting sued. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Meise

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

Sources are about the company; fails to meet WPANYBIO; COI (created by the employee - see the name of the author). BoraVoro (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe to draftify? BoraVoro (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion. While some cited sources are about the company, the article also cites multiple good sources that discuss the subject in detail, for example AW Architektur & Wohnen (footnote 1), Die Welt (footnote 4), or Handelsblatt (footnote 12). Also, I think that the article meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Meise has receieved well-known awards, which the article demonstrates. --88.20.56.144 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Van de Put

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, except with reference to other articles (i.e. Irene Rosenfeld and Mondelez International). Tule-hog (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is a prominent CEO, so I guess I'm testing deletionist waters with this. Does read a bit like a resume, which could just need attention.

Tule-hog (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prominent CEO with enough coverage to meet the GNG (although the article is lacking) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chairman and CEO of a Nasdaq 100/S&P 100 company. Plenty of reliable source content that could be added. Tule-hog should familiarise themselves with WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needn’t be deleted - he is CEO of a prominent multinational company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:746C:C300:F416:87C1:C67A:256 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD isn't cleanup but presenting a few of the sources may help round out this discussion. Hoping to resolve this with one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments only: Firstly, several of the sources are actually the same. Secondly, appearing in a list of “40 under 40” is not the same thing as “one of the 40 most popular women.” Finally, we need to decide whether being a partner in Dentons, by far the largest law firm in the World, creates a legal notability by itself. This discussion might have to go more than a few days. In the meantime, please ping me if you find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more opinions here on closure options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable at this time, agreeing with the reasons that the sources used in the article and an online search of the name do not show significant coverage in independent sources. Another thing she is a member, doesn't look like a partner at Denton's through its acquisition of Hamilton Harrison & Mathews Law Firm; additionally, notability is not inherited, as is the case with her and Dentons Law Firm. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunch Accounting}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siemens PLM Software}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTech Infosystems Inc.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green zebra adventures}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Technologies}}