Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomInk (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CustomInk

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

promotional and non-notable. "best place to work " is a dubious distinction, awarded by no firm criteria. Best place to work in multiple cities doesn't add anything to it. Using this sort of material to support notability impliest either that there is nothing better, or the promotional intent to say whatever sounds like favorable. The statement about "growth" similar are just notices of particular investments, plus unsourced and unsourceable claims about the importance of their products.. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you do a google search for news (in the tool above) you'll find a bigger load of articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yesindeed, I find a large number of press releases and a few incidental notices. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although Northamerica1000 and VMS Mosaic (the only still noticeably active users}} voted keep with Velella nominating it at the 1st AfD, none of this satisfies the applicable companies notability and press releases and other unacceptable material is not enough to convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concluded that it failed all notability tests when I firts nominated this at AfD and despite allegations there that I had failed to take due diligence in searching out sources, I remain firmly wedded to my original view. I can see nothing that changes my view. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sources below are bylined news articles that are authored by journalists. Also, how could the book sources I provide below (some of which I posted at the last AfD discussion) be "press releases"? This makes no sense. Source examples include, but are not limited to the examples below. Promotional tone can be corrected by simply copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
Techcrunch
CNBC
Forbes
I Love You More Than My Dog. Penguin. (book)
Flip the Funnel. John Wiley & Sons. (book)
Wiley Pathways E-Business. John Wiley & Sons. (book)
Washington Business Journal (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Albuquerque Journal (WP:NEWSBLOG)
CBS News2 (Reno)
PC Magazine (short article)
Times Dispatch (short article)

Keep –- Substantial news stories as pointed out by North America¹⁰⁰⁰Meets WP:GNG - Also, $300M company with 1500 employees. Jgreene1333 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing has changed since the first AfD. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per North America. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article appears to satisfy the basic notability of WP:ORG. Sheer logic dictates that a company with 500 employees and revenue of $300 million needs a Wikipedia article. Silverado60 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. That is a complete misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability policy. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of proposed sources

The Forbes article is "This interview is part of the cover story in the May 23, 2011 issue of Forbes, where we ask eight father/child pairs to reflect on their relationships " its about the family, not the company.
Washington BusinessJournal is essential a place where press releases get published.
The Albuquerque Journal "article" is a slightly disguised ad for their T-shirts, and so are some of the others.
The Wiley Pathways book is a quote from the owner.
At least some of the WSJ stories are about people making investments and getting a story out of it. If the WSJ covers relatively small investments, there's likely to a reason, but the reason is not likely to be the actual importance of the company.
There is substantial similarity between all the articles examined, which does show that the bare based on similar press releases, or copying the same quotations. I haven't checked for actual plagiarism. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I suspect similarly of the others. The company is very good at public relations. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (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.