Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJAB Networks

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. Courcelles 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJAB Networks

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Have to agree with the nom here; I can't find any sources. Fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may be non-notable as it's not a huge corporation with worldwide press recognition, all companies started somewhere and have significance in their own markets. If size and popularity are factors in articles, how do we reason the existence of an article for insignificant places like Unger, West Virginia? MFTU 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTU (talk • contribs)

Comment – The basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is that establishment of the subject's Wikipedia based notability. Size and popularity are not factors in that criteria. The existance of another article has no bearing on this article, each article must stand on its own merits. Unless you can show how this company meets the criteria in WP:COMPANY, it is likely it will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I honestly don't have time to read through a multi-page guide on notability, so in my speed-read it looks like what Wikipedia wants is to be able to find the company in sources such as newspapers. Many companies don't make newspapers or other sources, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. MFTU 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTU (talk • contribs)

Comment – Those companies that do not have adequate newspaper or other secondary sources coverage are not notable from the perspective of Wikipedia. If you are not willing to take the time to read the criteria, then it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's silly. It's not like the article takes that much space or bandwidth. Also, I keep putting the four tildes at the end and it says I'm not signing it. ...And then it has the nerve to message me and tell me I'm not. MFTU 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment – It is really not silly. Setting criteria such as that helps create a quality encyclopedia. My guess the reason your signature is not recognized is that it is not formated correctly in the preferences section. It appears the link to your user and talk pages do not work. ttonyb (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless proper third party references are added. See WP:PSTS. The only reference present is from the organization's website itself. That too was incorrectly cited. мαуαηк·αвнιѕнєк ^{talk · contribs} 05:07, 12 November 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.