- 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 No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inktel Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of awards does not establish WP:N but precludes WP:CSD#A7. References are pretty much all about the awards. -Zeus-u|c 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment page moved to correct capitalization just after this AfD was opened. DES (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep seems sufficiently, although not hugely, notable. i have added some text and a number of refs since this was nominated. Many more refs are behind paywalls, at least twice as many as I have cited. DES (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that the nominator put this up for AfD very shortly after I had declined an A7 Speedy that he placed, I question the amount of WP:BEFORE work that he did on this article. DES (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did do some legwork. I looked through the provided references as they were, and they all seemed to be template pages or press releases - nothing significant. The most notable source I found was a sentance in the Miami Daily Business Review, and that was only in passing on an article about economic recovery. -Zeus-u|c 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my view, perhaps not universally shared, that when the prime issue is notability, a nominator ought to make a good faith attempt to actually find sources not in the current article. Given that I found and added 7 citeable refs, all via basic google searches, well...
- In any case what do you think of the article with the refs I have added? DES (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one I find close to WP:RS is the Miami Business Review, and I don't think that's enough to establish WP:N. Any company is bound to be mentioned in some magazines or papers, but I don't see any of these refs (or awards) as establishing notability per WP:CORP. -Zeus-u|c 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did do some legwork. I looked through the provided references as they were, and they all seemed to be template pages or press releases - nothing significant. The most notable source I found was a sentance in the Miami Daily Business Review, and that was only in passing on an article about economic recovery. -Zeus-u|c 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:26, 25 February 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.