Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Info Directions Inc.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Directions Inc.[edit]

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

Twice nominated and once deleted per A7, fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep gnews produces [1] and a few similar. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Having products, an office and some staff is not notable in itself, and this article reads like a PR piece or business directory entry. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is asserted by the uniqueness of the company's products and by the company's appearance on various lists such as the Inc. 500 and (less interestingly) the Rochester Top 100. It is not necessary that a company be fascinating to the layperson for it to be notable by Wikipedia standards. - Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable. Sources provided are routine business coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 07:24, 2 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.