Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journyx
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't establish notability of the company per WP:CORP. It makes a claim to have a product that might be notable, but without supporting third party coverage, it doesn't meet guidelines. Please read the inclusion guidelines at WP:CORP if you are unfamiliar with them. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per addition of references. I've just been seeing so much spamming happening at Saas that I wanted a clear boundary between what companies are notable and what aren't. Articles that didn't establish notability came here.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - spamadnotfreewebspacegodistributepamphletselsewhere - Richardcavell 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, satisfies WP:CORP criteria 1. Company is mentioned in IT Manager's Journal [1], and in other companies' ress release [2]. Kimchi.sg 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Speedy Keep per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kimchi. -- MyNameIsNotBob 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kimchi. SorryGuy 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suppose - could do with being tightened up though. Tyrenius 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More or less spamad for a pretty not notable corp. Also I dont agree it meets WP:CORP criteria 1 - the coverage looks "trivial" or at least pretty lightweight to me. Marcus22 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given that there are delete votes other than the nominator's, I would still regard this AfD as open despite the nominator's withdrawal. Please feel free to comment. Chick Bowen 20:36, 2 May 2006 (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.