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! 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A J M Industries, LLC

[edit]
A J M Industries, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

articles main claim for its subjects notability is "they have a lot of trucks" WuhWuzDat 12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recent help in editing this article and I apologize If I've done something to offend you in the past. This article was written, and continues to be edited, in good faith within the policies set forth by wikipedia.

The content of this article clearly meets all requirments for inclusion, falls within the scope of several wikiprojects; including New Jersey & Business, and contains content similar to hundreds of other articles that appear in the categories that this article belongs to.

I must renew my request that the "consideration for deletion" be withdrawn, and kindly ask that you re-evaluate your initial posture regarding this article.

This article has since been re-edited to further address your concerns. --Helpful4sure (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful4sure (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD debates typically run for 7 days, and are closed by after consensus is reached. While the content of this article is not objectional, the Notability of its subject is debatable. WuhWuzDat 18:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Author is writing this article at the request of the subject's owners. WuhWuzDat 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contribution to the growth of the iron and steel industry. It is notable for it's role in supplying publicly owned corporations. It is notable because it has received the acclaim and approval of the United States Small Business Administration. It is notable because it is recognized regionally. It is recognized internationally. A J M is notable due to the fact that it's annual sales are over $3 Million, which in itself is notable. I would like to point out that notability is EXTREMELY subjective and merely stating that a subject is not notable does not make it so. I have been upfront and open about my relationship to the subject which is that I was casually asked in conversation to write a peice on the company because of my "perceived" writing skills. I have no conflict of interest here and also have openly invited other members to edit the article. Which they have done.--Helpful4sure (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other editors contributions to this article, up to this point in time, consist of fixing formatting errors, removal of an inappropriate category, and placement and removal of various deletion tags. WuhWuzDat 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The above referenced quote suggesting my conflict of interest is in fact a misquote. The entire entry reads:I am not a stakeholder in the Company A J M Industries, LLC however I have been asked, at the request of ownership, to write an objective article about this business in Saddle Brook, NJ. The content of the article shall be neutral according to terms and referenced properly with varifiable information.

Reply, clicking on the blue text in my previous reply (timestamped 18:53) will bring up the exact quote referenced above. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: This is in fact the second time text I've written has been misquoted or misrepresented as to the spirit of the comment.

Further reply, The primary assertion of notability, indeed almost 50% of the article, as it existed at the time of AfD nomination, was this companies fleet of trucks. Quotation marks have been struck out, however, I stand behind my original rationale for deletion. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Further Comment: The banners I placed on the discussion page indicating that this article fell within the scope of the wikiproject New Jersey and Wikiproject Business were removed. I kindly ask that they be replaced because they are obviously relevant to this discussion. --Helpful4sure (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, The removed "Banners" were placed on the talk page of this AfD discussion, which is not part of either of the aforementioned Wikiprojects. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous editor's post regarding his ability to find significant coverage has been discussed on my user page. This editor appears to devalue sources that cannot be "freely" googled at no cost to the researcher. I submit that if one is truly interested in establishing the notability of the subject they would invest time and money (which I have done) and make an unbiased decision (which I have done). The third party coverage requested does in fact exist and has been referenced more substancially than many articles in the categories that this article appears in. Again, notability is NOT established in a 2 minute google search. I invite you to invest in the research, come to New Jersey, talk with residents, attend a Steel Industry convention, talk with seasoned industry professionals, as well as decision makers at publicly traded corporations, once you have done this...then your arguement whether the subject is notable or not will have some credibility. Cheers --Helpful4sure (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact my main complaints involved manifestly unhelpful references, such as:
http://www.industrynet.com/company.asp?start=AJM
A simple listing of companies that does nothing more than establish their existence. Mere existence doesn't establish notability.
http://www.sba.gov/loans/businessdetail/output/2007/busnj.html
A page that lists many hundreds of businesses in New Jersey, listing only the name of the company, the city they're in, and how much of a loan they received. This is not ony a primary source, but also demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that this company, among hundreds of others, received a loan for $50,000. Many companies received far more.
http://www.gaebler.com/Paramus++NJ++COLUMBIA+BANK--SBA-Loan-List
The same list as above, only shorter
... I did not even notice that "DNB.PowerProfiles.com" required registration to read the full profile. This was an oversight on my part; it looked too much like another junk listings site. Hairhorn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note:This comment is uncivil and I kindly request that it be removed.--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Notability has been established. This addresses a previous concern that a fellow editor had regarding notability, which has been addressed. I thought this was a discussion. Please keep an open mind and be willing to change your initial opinion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already recommended to "keep" above, repeating your opinion does not help the discussion. WuhWuzDat 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One person does not a consensus make. WuhWuzDat 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...said the preacher to the choir.
The business community, as well as other decision makers locally, regionally, nationally & internationally have reached a consensus on this subject (see top ten list above). The editors who have voiced opinions here as well as the broader wikipedia community have acquiesced. I'll let you have the last word if you insist but I'd rather hear from individuals that can contribute constructively to wikiprojects such as wikiproject New Jersey, wikiproject business and wikiproject corporation. --Helpful4sure (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, my dear young friend, on the inclusion of subjects such as A J M Industries; including their "wikipedia notability," has indeed been established by the business community and by the wikipedia community. The business community here on wikipedia, as well the broader community, have in fact acquiesced, with the exception of a couple of editors with a reputation for deletions and speedy deletions.
List of Ten Reasons a consensus has been established on the inclusion of this article:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_Steel
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Steel
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_New_Jersey
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Distributors
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2004
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wholesalers
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transportation_in_New_Jersey
--Helpful4sure (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Item 1, a long established, unrelated, rolling mill. See WP:WAX
Item 2, a large, unrelated steel stamping plant supplying the auto industry, See WP:WAX
Note: WP:WAX does not prevent this type of arguement, especially since this is just a small part of the broader cogent argument for inclusion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Items 3 thru 10, categories that YOU added YOUR article to, proves absolutely nothing, beyond the fact that you figured out how to add your article to categories. I could add Caterpillar Inc. to Category:Watchmakers, but that wouldn't make their products useful for time telling, nor comfortable to wear on your wrist. Wouldn't you look silly with a huge yellow bulldozer on your wrist?
Your repeated lists of meaningless trivia, and unilateral proclamations of consensus!, and notability! do nothing to establish these criteria.
I am reminded of the old saying, "...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!"
Consensus will be established here, on this page, not in your mind, or in some broader business community. Wikiprojects, categories, and images do nothing to prove notability. WuhWuzDat 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note:I don't appreciate your tone, your sarcasm, or your use of foul language. You are repeatedly acting in an uncivil manner and adding nothing constructive to this discussion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is inaccurate, I didn't add the article to all of these categories or wikiprojects. The categories that I did add, were added at the request of another editor and all categories are rational, and relevant; unlike your caterpillar example.--Helpful4sure (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, diff showing YOU adding items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 here. Item 7 here. Item 8 here. Item 9 was NOT add by you, (my apologies), but was added as an indirect result of your addition of item 7. WuhWuzDat 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point?--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To counter your (inaccurate) claim of my previous response being "inaccurate". WuhWuzDat 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous response was inaccurate, you admitted it, then clarified it, then went on to infer some weird meaning that somehow it shouldn't matter that another editor added this article to the wikiproject companies project. To which I ask the question...What's your point?--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is extremely obvious to me that the original author of the article in question intends to bury any meaningful additions to this discussion in endless mounds of trivia, "top 10 lists", unrelated facts, accusations of incivility, baseless rebuttals of any argument to delete, and unilateral proclamations of consensus!, and notability!, I will now withdraw from this discussion, to leave him here talking to himself. I would suggest that future participants in this discussion limit themselves to a simple recommendation of action for the article, with reasoning. WP:DENY may apply. See also: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass My original nomination to DELETE still stands. WuhWuzDat 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for participating. I would like to know what you think of the list of top ten reasons for notability and also what this company could do to become more notable if you think that these reasons are insufficient. I've read the article on notable notability that you reference and from my point of view this company has met all of the criteria. Also, since you don't like the history section...would you take some time and help me out by re-editing it. Thanks--Helpful4sure (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top ten reasons "for notability" boil down to one thing: other stuff exists. Nothing there is an argument for the subject being notable. If that's the strongest evidence, I may need to up my recommendation to a strong delete. As for rewriting the history, once there are better sources, I'll look at it, and re-evaluate the article. I'll also monitor the article's talk page. But until independent sources are added to the article, I'm done with discussion here. SK —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for participating, but I was referring to this list:
True: Just wanted to get the point across that without reading all references, including the ones that Not Free, that a decision on notability & verifibility could not be made--67.83.175.240 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you constructive criticism, but it will largely be issues that have already been gone over again and again, because the entry has the same problems as before:
-Why does it say they "made news", but then the reference is to a list of loans? Where's the news coverage? (and why is the amount of the loan in the article twice as much as that given in the list?)
-How is it that you make a number of claims about the company, the steel industry ("the steel industry is an oligopoly") and other matters, but the entry only has one reference, the list of loans? My very first suggestion to you on the talk page of the article was to go over the guidelines on original research, but they don't seem to have sunk in.
-the article uses the words "notable" and "notably" several times, but as other have tried to point out, pointing and saying "notable!" doesn't make it so, especially with no references to back it up.
-the entry says that steel coils are very uncommon, but the wiki entry for steel coils says that "Almost all types of sheet steel come in coiled form". Which is it?
But as always, the main issue with this article (apart from promotion) is notability, which is still not established, by my reading. Also:
-You have still not addressed the conflict of interest matter, which is significant
-Many of the wiki links are done as http:// links, when they should all be internal wiki links using double square brackets.
-it's with an apostrophe is a contraction of "it is" or "it has", the possesive "its" does not have an apostrophe.
Hairhorn (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
1) I did not add the first reference to this article, another editor did, I have since added more references, now that I know how to do it.
2) There is no origional research in this article, everything I state in this article is properly referenced.
3) I have taken out some of the "notable" in the interest of consensus.
a) Pointing out reasons the subject is notable is inherent to a discussion about the subjects notability, I don't see any way around that especially when people just keep saying "not notable" again and again without reading the article, the references, or doing any background research on the subject. Also, pointing and saying "not notable" doesn't make it so either.
4) I wrote the article on "steel coils" they are uncommon enough that an article didn't exist on wikipedia about them. Anyway it's a stub that I wrote pretty fast and I'm not sure that all types of flat steel do come in steel coils, that article could be improved.
5) I don't have a conflict of interest, read my page, I don't work for A J M, I work in the industrial park where they are located and find what they do very interesting. I had never seen the type of products that they sell before. The owner is a young guy, I was curious and struck up a conversation about his business and then thought that others might be interested in the products they sell, what they do etc.
6)There is no promotion in the article, only facts, and even if there was you could fix it by editing it for neutrality.


In today's environmnet where Government Money is going is notable
Players in an Oligopoly are notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.238.43 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2009 (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.
More