Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/7 Customer

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 Keep. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Customer

This article (originally created at 247 Customer) has been re-created 8 times. It was deleted 5 times on October 13, 2006 as a copyright violation, and repost, deleted January 26, 2007, and June 19, 2007 (G11). I have redirected the page to the company's actual title, (24/7 Customer), and I have removed the sections that I could identify as blatant copy/paste of information from the company's website, http://www.247customer.com/ but the company still does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP, and I think perhaps a formal discussion and decision should be done, and if a delete consensus reached, a salting of these two pages may be in order. Ariel♥Gold 12:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, they actually have a surprising amount of independent coverage. I just cherry picked from a few of the notable publications I'm familiar with which seem to have a 'more than passing' mention of the firm and have cleaned up the article a little more. There are many, many Indian publications which have more in-depth coverage, but I'm afraid I can't tell which are reliable sources and which are self-published. I ignored the WSJ article - it seems to be part of a "WSJ blog", and I'm not sure how much editorial control is in place for that. Concur with the salting if the article is ultimately deleted; at least they've improved their adcopy since the first version in 2006 (yikes!). Kuru ^talk 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, and we have an ongoing COI issue with the editors that isn't about to get better Mayalld (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal forcefully with improper COI edits. It doesn't make our job any easier but they do seem fairly notable and successful in the outsourcing/offshoring world (and that's a real WSJ article, not a blog post). --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP - even if it is mentioned once in WSJ, as it's not notable. The services it provides may be useful and notable, but notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources highlighted by DHartung and Kuru. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (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.