Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posigrip

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) T3h 1337 b0y 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posigrip[edit]

Posigrip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article all are blogs or press releases, and I was unable to find anything better than trivial product listings online. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - I am not against any user but Acoustic is the parent company of Posigrip, which is really huge and earning huge revenues and also had a huge growth in the last few years. Therefore, I believe the Posigrip wiki page must not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1guy (talk • contribs)
The reasons you give seem a little abstract; would you be willing to provide a little more detail for the keep rationale in the context of the notability guidelines, particularly WP:CORP? VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be about Acoustic and not about Posigrip. Even then, Acoustic must meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. 'Beleiving' a subject to be notable is unfortunately not among the criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, I will explain with an example. There are two brothers who are singers. One is more popular and second one learnt from the first one and become a bit less popular than the first one. So, can't both of them have a wiki page ? The second one learnt from the first one so that doesn't matters. Same with this issue, Acoustic is the parent company of Posigrip but Posigrip itself is a well established company. So, what can't it have a wiki page ? Cool1guy (talk)
Please refer to Wikipedia policies and criteria that support your non-deletion rationale. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - I would like to recommend the article be edited and then proposed for re-introduction. When creating the article I should have stated more clearly that Acousti-Clean Inc. is doing business as (DBA) Posigrip.[1] Acousti - Clean Inc. DBA as Posigrip is a long standing company and was named an INC 500 company in 2007. [2]
I believe an Inc. 500 company deserves a listing on Wikipedia. The company may lack a large online presence, but is nevertheless a verifiable, long standing company. The company has been recognized by Inc. 500 as one of the fastest growing private companies in America,[3] is registered with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Dun & Bradstreet,[4][5] and owns several trademarks with the United States Trademark Office.[6] Posigrip has been around since 1986 and is a registered trademark with the United States Trademark Office.[7][8] Et bravo (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Making the above references visible and removing duplicates yields:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't see how the company meets WP:ORG or the product meets WP:N. At the moment it just looks spammy. Note that the company being wildly profitable does not mean that their products are automatically notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • userify  The first sentence of the article says that "Posigrip is a company" but other sources contradict this statement.  For example this page shows that Posigrip is a registered trademark. But this page both says that Posigrip is a registered trademark and that "Posigrip" has status as a copyright holder, and on the about page that Posigrip is a division.  I could not find any other references to "Feret News".  Considering moving this article to Acousti-Clean, one year on the Inc. 5000 list goes slightly toward the definition in WP:N, "worthy of notice", but only slightly.  I am not opposed to userifying–with all of the franchise listings it is hard to find independent secondary sources that may actually exist.  This 16 April 2011 source may be relevant, I'm not sure who "Franchise Gator" is: www.stockmarketsreview.com/news/132400.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 23 April 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.
  1. ^ Better Business Bureau [1]
  2. ^ Inc. 500. [2]
  3. ^ Inc. 500 [3]
  4. ^ Dun & Bradstreet, [https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/ReportSelectionCmd?dunsNumber=0&busName=ACOUSTI-CLEAN%2C%20INC.&searchType=NSF&storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&productId=0&address=825%20GATEPARK%20DR%20STE%203&city=DAYTONA%20BEACH&state=FL&zip=321147307&country=US
  5. ^ Better Business Bureau [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ [6]
  8. ^ [7]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posigrip&oldid=1138247228"