- 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 delete. Kevin (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FileFactory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company lacking GNEW and with no GHits of substance to support Notability. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's in Alexa's top 1000 worldwide, so it seems very popular. Or atleast merge it somewhere. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment very popular items are definitely notable because of their popularity. As I said, a merge somewhere would be fine by me. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – That is an incorrect statement. Popularity does automatically render Wikipedia notability. See WP:POPULARITY ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tag for referencing. Although popularity does not guarantee notability in the wikipedia sense, they are correalted. The article is very new, and hasn't been really given a chance for improvement. Tag for referencing first before heading straight for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam; contains no information of an encyclopaedic nature, and none can be found in reliable sources to fix it. Chzz ► 06:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Chzz. No reliable sources found. GlassCobra 15:25, 14 October 2009 (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.