Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookit (company): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Bookit (company): {{subst:delsort|Companies|~~~~}} |
Draft and userfy |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Return to draftspace''' as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like {{U|Timtrent}} as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:18, 26 November 2015
- Bookit (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect WP:COI editing. SJK (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk
- I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. SJK (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Return to draftspace as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like Timtrent as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)