Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGem Productions

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGem Productions

Non notable company. I can not find any third party items, but it appears to be in partnership with many companies/organisations, and/or the central company in a group. It was created by what amounts to a single purpose account- creating lots of articles related to this company, and with no real editing outside of it. Delete, unless sources can be found. J Milburn 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Technicalnote 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) This company has worked with many big companies and is affiliated with notable organizations. I used to work for a Circuit City store in the San Fernando Valley and I remember iGem Productions doing some internal marketing work for them as well. I feel they are as notable as other agencies such as Saatchi and Saatchi or Ogilvy & Mathers.— Technicalnote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--Macaddictguy 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I included iGem Productions in wikipedia because of their charitable contributions to education, educators, and for creating an non-profit organization promoting educational reform. I work for the LAUSD and was impressed at how much this company cares about charities and education. Most companies donate money to charity for the tax incentives, whereas this company offers real services to schools for free, and does not even ask for documentation to write it off. They help schools because they genuinely care about education and our youth. As a gift they created a distribution system for a Community Outreach program which enabled thousands of under-privileged families in Los Angeles to be effectively fed. They did not even publicize doing this, which I felt was incredibly humble and notable, thus meriting inclusion in Wikipedia.[reply]

Comment: Nothing that has been said confers notability as per WP:CORP. The lack of contributions, and mirrored inability to express opinions correctly in AfD debates, as well as the incorrect use of signatures, makes me think that Technicalnote and Macaddictguy are the same person. If so, I implore you to read WP:SOCK. J Milburn 17:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment; I spotted the identical signature misplacement and came to the same conclusion as you (that they were sockpuppets) before I realised you'd got there first. Fourohfour 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per no 2ndary sources the_undertow ^talk 02:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the sections of the article on Professional Affiliations (the state & two local chambers of commerce, and D&B --no trade organizations.) and--unique in my experience-- IGem_Productions#Advertises With DGG 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inclusion in Wikipedia is not a reward for good deeds, unless such deeds make the company notable. Lack of secondary sources asserting notability does not help.

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.