Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom Toll Free
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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Custom Toll Free (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)
I removed a good deal of advertising from this, but I don't think they're actually notable. The awards are local and sourced only to PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The company is notable and the article satisfies WP:GNG. WP:RS have been used to prove the fact that the company is actually notable. Not every company is worthy of getting local awards. There are thousands of companies in a state and few of them get awards on their performances by their respective states. Getting an award on a national or international level is not a criteria to nominate an article for deletion.
--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 16:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The company is notable and the article satisfies WP:GNG. WP:RS have been used to prove the fact that the company is actually notable. Not every company is worthy of getting local awards. There are thousands of companies in a state and few of them get awards on their performances by their respective states. Getting an award on a national or international level is not a criteria to nominate an article for deletion.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not sure how this meets GNG as claimed above. There are 8 references; the first is a directory listing for the CEO, the second, third, and sixth are simple press releases from the company, the fourth is a user editable directory listing, the fifth is a one sentence blog entry, the seventh does not even mention the company or support the statement it is alleged to support. The last one appears to be the company's entry in a a non-notable local list of growing companies; hardly an "award". There is no significant coverage anywhere in those refs, and I cannot find any quickly. Kuru (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. As pointed out above, nothing in sources meets WP:IRS. A reasonable search doesn't help much. A news search gets 143 hits, all in Seattle Post Intelligencer, and all linking an ad about a contest this subject is running in the SPI. A general search garners 220K hits, but most of those don't relate to the company, but to a generic use of the phrase. Of those which do refer to the company, nothing meets the standard for independent reliable sources directly detailing. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2012 (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.