Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manz Corporation

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 keep. Nomination by banned editor Torkmann. All delete !votes struck (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manz Corporation[edit]

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

Not a significant corporation, non notable, spam, cruft, possible conflict of interest, advertising, promotional. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there's no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made some significant improvements to the article and I feel that the company was certainly notable in its time, due to the large number of mentions in various big name newspapers. For anyone who has problems with the fact that most of the sources require payment to be viewed should remember, by WP:PAYWALL, that ease of access to sources is not required for them to be reliable or able to be used. Silver seren^C 03:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets general notability with significant independent coverage. Pointing to even more notability is coverage outside of Chicago. Fascarelli is already blocked and Armbrust should be looked into.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as i don't see, how it is notable. Every compeny has a history. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And every company where the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [is] presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So, every company that has been discussed by third parties where there is enough information for an article should get one. Notability is not exceptionability. Your thinking of Guinness World Records where only the exceptional are listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this article has enough references to satisfy notability. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:42, 15 August 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.