Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Business on Wikipedia
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions – Cleanup

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

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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

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

Purge page cache

Watch this page

[edit] Business

[edit] Makebelieve Records

I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1(talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Label of notable bands. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jewell Towne Vineyards

This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - sources meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS which establishes WP:Note.
Keep - I added three more reliable source references to this article (provided below), I believe it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:N and WP:CORP.
- "The time is ripe." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) September 27, 2004, State, Business: C1.
- "South Hampton vintner wins 7 medals." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) August 30, 2004, State, Business: C2.
- Zraly, Kevin (2006). Kevin Zraly's American Wine Guide. New York: Sterling. pp. p116. ISBN 1-4027-2585-X. http://books.google.com/books?id=gFKbtiJLuj4C&pg=PA116&dq=Jewell+Towne+Vineyards&as_brr=3&ei=E2BlSYTkHIjcygSUx_T7Ag. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete Sources seem to be local and coverage may not be substantial enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Generator Hostels

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), in that I am unable to locate any coverage of this company in reliable secondary sources. Nothing useful on Google News - and I could find nothing beyond references to the company on sales and customer review sites with a standard Google search. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxy Technology

While article isn't obviously a PR effort, the company hardly scratches the surface of notability (the one hit, in German, in a Google News search is about trade name infringement, and the archives don't give much more either--but a lot more press releases). I can't find any independent and in-depth coverage of the company, and until that coverage turns up, the article, in my opinion, should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - appears to fail WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment- I'm not sure what nominator's looking for, but I found a few resources: ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Plus there is some mention about name infringement, but I think I've narrowed it down to company in question. To me, these sources dignify significant coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indian online DVD rental services comparision

WP:OR, WP:SYN; I don't see anything here that indicates that comparison of Indian online DVD rental services is a notable topic or one to which much research has been devoted. roux 10:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and this article runs afoul of WP:NOTLINK; the tabular presentation of the companies' rate structures doesn't change the fact that this is nothing but a collection of links to Indian DVD rental companies. Verges on violating CSD G11 (blatant advertising), and in any event, neither the comparison nor the companies meet notability requirements. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Pure OR. Plus no indication of notability of subject matter. Unnecessary cruft. ^LeaveSleaves 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable OR. Perhaps we should expand WP:NOT to say, "Wikipedia is not a comparison shopping site". Abecedare (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Remarkable Current

I can't find any reliable source that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1(talk) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Complete college stupidity. South Bay (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep--I think there's some notability here; I found two references, both of them solid, and have added them to the article. No doubt someone who actually knows this stuff can do a better job than me. Needless to say, there's no "college stupitidy" here. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep - squeaks by WP:N, which is the usual threshold for inclusion. Doesn't seem to warrent an exception. Wily D 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Styic Entertainment Co.

Possible NN-corporation. Declined as an A7 speedy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete The article has recieved no non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources:

Google web search only brings up a youtube video, a facebook page and the company's website
Google news search brings up nothing.

If this article is kept it definitily needs to be cleaned up as it is written like an advertisement.--Patton^t/c 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per Patton. Also, I would like to point out that none of the entertainers/singers/bands that it represents has an English wiki entry. It fails WP:NOTE. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] E. Upton and Sons

Notability concerns (tagged since September 2007). The first AfD, a year ago, was closed with the comment: "The result was keep. Hopefully sources will follow." They did not follow. Therefore I think we should re-evaluate whether the company is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete There don't seem to be any sources at all online, but that doesn't mean there aren't any print sources somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - There are some pay per view sources on Google News for "Garner PLC", apparently the new namve for E Upton and Sons. LinguistAtLarge 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Pay sources are perfectly sufficient for use at Wikipedia. These seem sufficient to show notability. DGG (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So add them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
DGG, please don't be offended by this question, but did you read these sources before judging the topics notability by them? I didn't since I don't have access, but only from the summaries they might just as well refer to this Garner PLC (which is completely unrelated). --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that Garner seems to be the same one - see ref 1 which I just added. MikeHobday (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

some may be; some are from PRwire & similar sources, which Google News unwisely includes; some are the occurance of the phrase in other contexts. At least a few are on point, such as [6]--though I agree that this particular one does not do much for notability. DGG (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Additional reason for keep is simple common sense: the number of stores is sufficient for notability, and it being extinct makes no difference at all. DGG (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of stores doesn't matter. WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIGNUMBER itself is a pitfall. It's not the number of stores that matter but the status of the store. Is it a national or international chain? If it is, it's notable regardless of the numbers involved even though the numbers will have contributed to the eventual cause of notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Garner PLC. I remember reading about E. Upton and Sons in the local press at the relevant time. It was important in the North of England, and as I remember, it did cause a bit of a stir in 2001/2002, so I was tempted to say "keep", but I couldn't find any reliable sources to support that.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete -- (various comments by me redacted here) -- this is fairly complicated. Looks like E. Upton & Sons turned into Upton & Southern, who were then acquired by Hilco UK (a company that deserves its own Wikipedia article more than Upton, incidentally), and part of the assets were sold to a Constellation Corporation who then changed their name to Garner PLC, which is a non-notable group of headhunters. -- I'm now inclined to the view that it's simpler to delete the article than to try to tell Upton & Sons' story.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep as regional chain. MikeHobday (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How the heck is that a reasoning? "Regional" has nothing to do with it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Listed, neutrally, I hope, at WikiProject North East England. MikeHobday (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of non-primary sources. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Marine Certification Services

No real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch turns up 33 non-wiki ghits, all of which appear to be directory listings and passing mentions. Zero gnews hits. Was deleted through prod in 2007; article creator asked for it to be restored several months ago, so taking to AfD instead of re-prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HIS - Hightech Information System Limited

probably incorrectly named borderline spam article on a company, whose compliance with WP:CORP may be suspect.The sources used in the article are all self-published and verification is proving difficult: 26 Ghits, most of which are directory listings of cards produced. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The naming issue can be fixed, but HIS appears several times in non-English news sources and in a few Hong Kong Industry directories. I'm pretty sure that it still doesn't pass WP:CORP, but I'm not 100% sure at this time. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator managed to form that Google search, but these searches find plenty of sources: Find sources: "Hightech Information System" — news, books, scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Search engine results are not evidence of notability. I cannot find significant coverage in english at least. Business directories cannot be used as they are neither independent nor significant. --neon white talk 01:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep: Secondary sources, per WP:CORP, for the company exist, but they are not in "first class" English sources such as PCWorld, News.com, etc. Some "2nd class" sources include PC Advisor UK, bit-tech.net, geek.com. —Noah 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quantec

This company appears to fail WP:CORP because it has not got substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Reyk _YO! 21:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I am always willing to err on the side of delete for WP:CORP, but this one meets the criteria. It was non-trivial to find notability info and third-party media coverage. Try German, and try European press. WP:BIAS and all that. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per overwhelmingly convincing argument. Separete COI issue should be handled.--Cerejota (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Shortserve (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, what do you mean that it was "non-trivial" to find coverage? If you found some, where is it?
The products of this company seem to have gotten reviews in reliable sources, per the translations at the company's press site. Most of these have appeared in the German audio magazine Keys. One is available at Pro Audio Review, and then there's one at Mix Professional Audio and Music Production.
Nevertheless, I don't see that we have significant coverage of the company, or that the bits in those articles are enough to verify the facts from the article. It was also created by an SPA who might be affiliated with Quantec's founder Wolfgang Buchleitner, even though he denied wanting to promote the company when both the article on company and founder were deleted on the German Wikipedia following the discussion at de:WP:Löschkandidaten/9. Dezember 2007#Wolfgang Buchleitner (gelöscht).
All in all I say delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. --Amalthea 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete my first impression at looking at the article was - why was this not speedied as A7. Then I saw a previous G11 nomination which was averted by a rewrite. Agathoclea (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Charles W. Machemehl

I believe this article fails WP:N. He is apparently most notable for trying to buy out his son's baseball contract. I believe this deserves mention in the son's article, but should not be enough to establish notability of the father. The sources are:

a) the subject's obituary in a local paper (that of Bellville, TX)
b) an article discussing the attempt to buy the son's contract
c) two references that talk about the son, not the father,
d) a brief local note that subject quit his job at the Central Prison Farm Packing and Canning plant
e) a brief local note that a cow raised at a farm he managed (not owned) won Grand Champion at a livestock show
f) a historical marker guide for a marker that does not mention the subject by name at all

Except for the local obituary, all of the sources show trivial coverage at best. As far as I am aware, having a local obituary is not enough to meet the significant coverage aspect of WP:N. An attempt to buy out a contract does not seem like a significant enough action to establish notability, nor does running a few businesses. Many of the sources are now deadlinks, so it is difficult to verify all of the information. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue Gallart

Person appears to fail all WP:Bio notability criteria. Currently works as a liaison for a local public agency. Previously worked as a minor assistant promoter at music companies. References provided offer zero coverage, only mentions his name. A search reveals nothing more. Previous Afd a year ago was a snow delete - and this doesn't appear to be an improvement — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree, I don't see any additional notability here. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Cleevely

Article reads like a CV. Most of the text was added by user DavidCleevely (talk · contribs). Notability is not provided by association with the (probably) notable company Abcam plc. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

keep Have deleted some of the less notable information - David Cleevely is one of the key drivers behind slicone fen. I believe that David Cleevely is notable and will try to gather more references. BillyBobPedant (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Reads EXACTLY like a CV, non-notable, probable vanity. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

can a more experience editor please suggest how to make this less CV-like? I was using Hermann Hauser as an article template as both figures achieve similar notoriety in Cambridge, but I've clearly not done a good enough job. Help much appreciated. Thanks. BillyBobPedant (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. I looked into the sources and I think the article passes WP:N guideline. It only needs further improvement. A CV-like article does not warrant deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. Definitely needs unfluffing but his professional fellowships seem to indicate some notability, as well as the claims he had the ear of some influential people (athough I need to check those claims out). I may have a go at cleanup. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update I had a go at cleanup. Perhaps it could be unfluffed some more but it appears his notability comes from his broad range of involvements with startups and such. Have another look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.