Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trademarkia

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. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarkia[edit]

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

This is a non-notable website. The information about the company is sourced entirely to two websites, one of which comes from a press release from trademarkia itself.

In addition, I would seriously question the motive for creating this article in the first place WP:SPAM. The article purports the company to be a free database, yet the purpose of the company is to sell its trademarking services. The article creator has also spammed wikipedia with links to the website. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:07,

Comment: I have edited the article to address your concerns. This site is notable, as there is nowhere else on the web to find stuff like the original Eli Lilly trademark, the original Coca Cola trademark, etc. I am biased, as I used to be a contractor to this company and am new to Wikipedia. I created the original post. However, I strongly feel that this site is worthy of mention on Wikipedia, if for nothing more than because it has so much great historical trademarks on it. It's database of trademarks is larger than the USPTO's own public search. I apologize for my previous posts, I will make sure my future posts on Wikipedia fully comply with policies as well, (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our relevant policy is WP:WEB and WP:CORP to determine whether an article should exist. It does not look like third-party independent sources exist for writing an article about this site. Therefore, it should still be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 25 January 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.