Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jensen Localization

Jensen Localization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was referenced by own website, blog, etc. I removed these references and inserted CNs and a warning. These were removed but the new references are not independent of the subject either. Moving to delete. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a company. They translate stuff. Nothing particularly notable.--Savonneux (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- entirely promotional. No indications of notability nor sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR, none of this actually contains information for a convincing article; thus with nothing even genuinely convincing, there's nothing to accept. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to DeleteThe article is meant to present the historical side of the company and how this company was Pioneer in this area. Please, allow me time to rework it and provide me with the guide on what I am doing wrong, other localization companies are in Wikipedia and not deleted as Lionbridge, could you explain me why is that? I have added new info and new ref. This company made a real impact in society and is a good example of comunity integration of a foreign company in Spain, as most foreigners in Andalusia they just go to party&destroy and that is what makes the difference these people care about the community, please give the article a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NicolasMartinFontana, in the article and here you make superfluous and incorrect claims. For those who care to look at the article's history, I found a repetitive all PR article, cut it back to the factual minimum, requested quality refs, and received close to nothing. You grew the article back again and both there and here add more sob stories about this wonderful company, while implying that there is something wrong with most other foreigners in the same region. That is libel. To make things worse, both on my talk page and the article's talk page you lie that you have POVd the article, while you actually ruined the POVing by others (notably me). gidonb (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you claim that the article should stay because Lionbridge has an article. This is an "other stuff exists" argument that does not hold water in AfD discussions. We disregard these claims because it is possible that the other article should not be there and then we do not allow to use it to justify the existence of more excessive articles in our encyclopedia. Lionbridge, however, is not an excessive article. It has a revenue of over half a billion dollar. The article is verified with high quality sources and also contains a list of controversies. It is a balanced article on an important company. Jensen Localization is neither balanced nor on an important company. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lionbridge is a WP:LISTED company, for starters, that has 6000 employees. The article under discussion says that the company has "circa 11-50" employees, which is rather small and indicates a non-notable (yet) business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb thank you for the detailed explanation and sorry if I offend you or anyone with what I wrote. What do you mean by POVing the article? I won't add more sobbing stories, and I will only refer to the facts (I will start deleting what was added recently). My apologies as I told you is my first article creation, before I was only translating them. K.e.coffman I forgot to add the 400 freelancers to that amount. (I know it is still small). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) gidonb and K.e.coffman I have updated the article, I hope that now matches the Point of View (POV) required, if it does I won't mess with the article more. I also added more info and reference about the amount of employees and freelancers. Regards to you both.[reply]