Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber-Duck (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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Duck[edit]

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

Delete. It is a company with 18 employees that won some awards. So what! Ok, it may meet WP:COMPANY but that just means that our notability guideline is set too low. If we let this one remain we will get all sorts of otherstuffexisting and WP will turn into a business directory rather than an encyclopaedia!. Delete it and change WP:COMPANY to prevent every CEO and market department setting up an article about their company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is notable as shown by plenty of references and Alan Liefting concedes that it meets WP:COMPANY. If Alan thinks that our notability guideline is too lenient, then please gain consensus for a stricter guideline before nominating such articles for deletion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it may meet the notability guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're a "digital agency", and I gather that they've made websites, but I still have no idea what they make or do here. This kind of evasive description is typical of spam. At any rate, there's no indication that any of the petty trade awards they've listed equate to the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that gets you remembered in encyclopedias. ("When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.") So no, it doesn't even meet the current notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a case of WP:ITBOTHERSME to me. While they may or may not be advertising on Wikipedia, they have won awards for their work. Criteria in WP:COMPANY is non-existent, so it's hard to say whether or not it does or doesn't meet that criteria. Credible news coverage, awards....sorry, it stays in my opinion. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_commercial_organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:53, 12 February 2011 (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.