Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MultiLing Corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Company might be notable but creator failed to make any assertions of such consistent with WP:CORP in article, nor did s/he add references during the week this was on AfD. (I would also note that this page has been speedied twice before, and any administrator coming to this after a subsequent recreation should seriously consider salting. Daniel Case 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MultiLing Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to fail WP:CORP Deiz talk 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of "significant coverage in independent media" (only press releases found) in WP:NOTE Corpx 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if 1) article can be expanded and revised beyond what I just did and 2) if more references can be added to better demonstrate notability. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the original creator of the page, I posted a comment in the discussion page before I found this page (sorry I'm new). Thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll dig up better links. I'm hoping to keep my first real page alive. Provotrumpet 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will help the closing administrator give weight to your opinion if you can demonstrate how the article satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Deiz talk 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable enough. —Xezbeth 08:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be looking at a version of the article that contains multiple, independent non-trivial references that I just can't see. Or you're completely ignoring WP:CORP. Closing admin, I trust you will give appropriate weight to the keep opinions offered here thus far, i.e. pretty much zero. Deiz talk 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the closing admin should ignore both process and policy to follow a guideline. Gotcha. —Xezbeth 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the closing admin should ignore opinions such as "Seems notable enough" that neither state nor even hint at why the subject in question is in any way notable. Process in these cases involves giving appropriate weight to such opinions, and if I'm inviting anyone to ignore policy in the above comment I'd be obliged if you'd point out where. The notability guidelines I refer to have been built over years with the input and discussion of many, many dedicated Wikipedia contributors and I find your italicizing of the word guideline both insulting and vindicating. Deiz talk 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it amusing that you criticise the detail I gave, when your nomination consists of 3 words and a link. I also find it amusing that you take offence at my italicising when you yourself did it in your reply to me. Whether something like this is worthy of an article is subjective, and I resent your attempts to discredit my !vote just because I disagree with you. —Xezbeth 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination gives a link to the guideline, and notes that the article fails to meet it which is a pretty typical reason for a trip to AfD, regardless of how many words are used to express it. Your opinion entirely fails to address the issues raised by that nomination. Feel free to include "I reject the WP:CORP guideline and the need for companies to have been featured in multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources" in your opinion so the closing admin has a better idea of where you're coming from. If you disagree with :CORP, you're disagreeing with a hell of a lot more people than just me, and I'm happy to stand up for all of them. Deiz talk 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it amusing that you criticise the detail I gave, when your nomination consists of 3 words and a link. I also find it amusing that you take offence at my italicising when you yourself did it in your reply to me. Whether something like this is worthy of an article is subjective, and I resent your attempts to discredit my !vote just because I disagree with you. —Xezbeth 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the closing admin should ignore opinions such as "Seems notable enough" that neither state nor even hint at why the subject in question is in any way notable. Process in these cases involves giving appropriate weight to such opinions, and if I'm inviting anyone to ignore policy in the above comment I'd be obliged if you'd point out where. The notability guidelines I refer to have been built over years with the input and discussion of many, many dedicated Wikipedia contributors and I find your italicizing of the word guideline both insulting and vindicating. Deiz talk 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the closing admin should ignore both process and policy to follow a guideline. Gotcha. —Xezbeth 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete - I agree, no assertion of notability is in this article, and no secondary sources are presented which assert the company's notability. However, I am uncomfortable voting delete for an article that was only created 7 hours earlier, as that seems to contradict the assumption of good faith (though if proof can be given that this was a SPA, I'm all in favour of permablocking the user or IP address). At the same time, the creator has now had almost a week to provide references, and hasn't done so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:49, 15 July 2007 (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.