Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBIZ (2nd nomination)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBIZ[edit]

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

I really don't see evidence of notability. It's more of a advert, as would be expected for something made by a paid group account. 86.** IP (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good news is they did a good enough job this time to avoid a speedy delete. The bad news is that they are still not notable. Press releases, incidental mentions, and more buzzwords than you can shake a stick at. No clear claim or proof of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete? Seriously? A company that is nationally ranked in its field in several categories? If the article needs to be revised to meet Wikipedia standards (better sourcing? what?), then allow time for editing. BerthaPWatson (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — BerthaPWatson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention the author was blocked for sockpuppetry as well. 86.** IP (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then WP:DENY would indicate a painful and protracted death is appropriate. After the article is deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. 86.** IP (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NYSE company, which is sufficient notability. It could be written more concisely, but that's easy to take care of. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being listed on the NYSE does not satisfy the WP:GNG, nor WP:CORP. Indeed, WP:CORP specifically denies inclusion on a list (save ones on the level of the Fortune 500) as a criterion for notability. 86.** IP (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—So I looked at the impressive number of references and thought "how can an article this well cited be at AfD?" Then I started checking the references. Every single one of them is trivial mention of the company or WP:SPS. Most of the independent articles are really about other companies that CBIZ has bought out... the coverage is far more detailed on the targets of the acquisitions, not CBIZ. Not wanting to give up so quickly, I ran a search through Highbeam Research and came up with nothing better than the current crop of references. This is a subject that appears notable, but on further inspection, clearly fails the WP:GNG. All of this is independent of the issues with the author/creator... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:48, 17 April 2012 (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.