This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 24. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are numerous but weak. As noted by the relisting admin (and in spite of his or her recommendation), they are mostly variants of WP:DEMOLISH, an essay of no particular authority, especially now that the article is ten days old and still reeks of advertising ("... its biggest growth has come from referrals from its large base of satisfied customers.").
In particular, the "keep" arguments mostly do not address the article's apparent failure to meet WP:CORP, a community-adopted guideline that states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The very few "keep" arguments that do address this issue are unpersuasive. The Google News search linked to by Shoessss includes no sources that cover this corporation in any depth and/or are intellectually independent from it; in fact most are press releases ("Business Wire", "PR Newswire") or their rehashes. The sources cited in the article itself are of a similar nature.
In application of WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, I find that community consensus, as determined in the light of the strength of the arguments put forth in this discussion, is to delete this article. It may only be recreated once it clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack or external references or sources makes me wonder if this is really a notable company? Addionne (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]