Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEK Computer Center

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. Secret ^account 14:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEK Computer Center[edit]

I repeat my PROD rationale: A company with 60 employees would typically not be notable. There's no evidence that this one is an exception - many external links are given, but I don't see substantial and independent coverage. Worse, this article was apparently created in WP:COI by the company itself. Thus, if notability can be established at all per WP:CORP, it would be better to restart the article from scratch. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG's de-prodding comment that being the largest such company in the country might make it notable, but I don't see proof that it is notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is notable, on that basis, if there is evidence of it, though I could not find it among the references given. Have the creators of the article been asked to supply a source for it---they should be able to. I. . DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creators have been notified of this discussion on their talk page, plus the notability tag has informed them of the problem for more than a year. That being said, I do not like the idea of companies writing encyclopedia articles about themselves, and I think we shouldn't encourage it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it as a conflict-filled advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real third party coverage [1]. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2008 (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.