Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ChicoProject, LLC.

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 delete. W.marsh 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ChicoProject, LLC.[edit]

An article about very small consulting company in a small California city, growing cruftier by the minute (it describes their dress code, for gawd's sake). They get 44 unique Google hits, so it doesn't look like they're that big even in Butte County. Calton | Talk 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. As nom mentioned, very few Google results [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, vanispamcrufisement. SM247^{My Talk} 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP Kevin 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, prod was removed (by author) with the talk page comment "The ChicoProject is a vastly growing business in northern california, and they have helped Chico State University's business program grow immensely, their have been alot of requests for an informative Wiki article about where they came from and exactly what they do. I tried to keep the article very unbiased and i'm not in any way trying to advertise for The ChicoProject." Kuru ^talk 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to WP:CORP nor could I find anything that would qualify. Despite the author's claims, this does read like an ad: "well known for their beautiful logos and Web work." Kuru ^talk 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN, and also as per above. Zos 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many of these nn articles springing up -- Alias Flood 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article. Tachyon01 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much to add on the 15 previous good reasons. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waste of server space, per above opinions. Alphachimp ^talk 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move and delet not encyclopedia move to a user page or to Myspace.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly veiled spamvertising (still) and the cruftiest spam I've seen, at that. (Dress code, indeed.) Grand master ka 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons everyone has stated above DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 18:35, 4 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
I changed the article to be a short blurb about the corporation until, i am going through the WP:Corp, and other articles to ensure that i do the article correctly. ~Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.175.40 (talk • contribs) 07:55 5 July 2006

Guy, the guideline is about the notability (and encyclopedic worthiness) of the SUBJECT ITSELF, not about whether the article has its i's dotted and its t's crossed. And your company does NOT meet WP:CORP standards, period/full-stop, and all the buffing and polishing of the article won't change that one bit. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 5 July 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.