Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Jump

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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Jump[edit]

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

I found no sources for this article other than press releases, the usual business listings, the company's own website, and a minor patent case. I don't think it meets WP:ORG. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, For the private companies, there are not much public information other than those which they provided publicly. As long as the information is not crossing the Wikipedia policies we should keep the article. AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found these websites : [[1]] [profile]

AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two comments above were copied from the talk page — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to AlbertSmith2020's comments: if there is not much public information about the company available, then the article will have to be deleted per WP:ORG (there wouldn't be enough reliable, external sources to satisfy the notability requirements). The first link you posted looks simply like a business listing, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source (see WP:ORGDEPTH), and the second is a dead link for me. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. One sentence about the history of inflatbles is not enough to redeem this. I'd say notability anissue as well: the arguement that small businesss don't create coverage is false: they do if they are notable.TheLongTone (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written like an advertisement. But I can see a lot of press releases and reviews about this company (Not sure how much reliable they are). I think the article has potential to survive if written properly. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The article has been revised and any possible advertising sentences have been removed from it.
The Followings are some of sources about this company and there are some PR as well on internet:
[business.highbeam.com]
[IAAPA profile]
[BBB ]
[manta]
[dmoz.org]
AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ. Its still full of the kind of ghastly excuse for English that only PR drones think means anything.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business listings and press releases are not reliable sources (and so don't prove notability) per WP:ORG. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company going about its normal business with the occasional piece of PR. I see no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 27 October 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.