Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made Market

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 speedy delete. Alexius08 (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made Market[edit]

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

Unremarkable business, no sources offered to indicate notability per notability guidelines. Speedy delete tags have been removed. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Respectfully disagree - I believe this business is remarkable. You are misusing the notability guidelines which are intended to combat spam and unambiguous promotion - not to delete authentic articles that have a need but no existence yet. This article provides neither spam nor promotion - but instead satisfies an encyclopedic need. Encylonedia 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been awaiting evidence of the "encyclopedic need" as shown with reliable sources. The notability guidelines are not an anti-spam filter but a way to evaluate notability. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is notable and any weak sections can be improved and any promotional matter can be removed.Rigsofrods (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Rigsofrods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 23:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Speedy delete article shows no claim to notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable. From crunchbase and angellist, it is clear that this article merits inclusion. This company will have an article. Its a matter of time, so it should be started and improved now. Encyclonedia (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Encyclonedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy-per nom-kept on having to restore that as well! Wgolf (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I know this company (customer) - they are notable in a space that does not get media coverage. This article provides factual, lasting and pertinent information and should be included. Wikimaui (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Wikimaui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What you describe is exactly what promotion is; article subjects must be shown to meet notability guidelines(in this case, those for businesses) with independent reliable sources such as news reports, books, or anything published that can be verified. The mere existence of this business does not merit a page. I would add the few sources that have been offered are just business listings and do not show how the business is notable. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There's no assertion of notability, no independent references at all. This might qualify for speedy delete undder A7. The keep votes here are pretty bizarre and don't seem to be providing any rationale for keeping the article. mikeman67 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI it was speedied but the tags were removed. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better can be found as this is also a new company so it's unlikely it would've gotten much coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. I would stress to the newly created accounts supporting this article that there is no right to have an article on Wikipedia, and that our definition of notability may not be the same as they find in their dictionaries. It does to quite an extent depend on 'media coverage'. Mere existence is not enough, unlike at directories. Listings are not enough. Mentions in passing are not enough. This rules out quite a large number of businesses that work in 'behind the scenes' areas. Until there is a general consensus to do something about this, followed by a general consensus on what to do and how to do it, those businesses will have to remain left out. I would also point out to the new accounts that the closing admin may attach less weight to them, and the more of them there are, even less weight may be attached. This is not a head count vote. It is a discussion based on Wikipedia policies, not on the law of any country or any principle of justice outside Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2015 (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.