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 consensus is for delete, and that is supported by our guidelines on companies - WP:COMPANY. As mentioned, the coverage of this company has not been significant. The point brought up about media coverage on the company's own website is dealt with in WP:NOT#NEWS. Essentially, we are looking for reliable evidence of notability rater than news coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B2C Jewels

[edit]

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

I am skeptical as to the notability of this online jewelry retail store. The only references, outside of business directories, are short mentions or vignettes in articles which are not about the B2C Jewels, but rather about online retailing in general. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotional, reads like a conversation. Not notable enough. RanJayJay (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The company is notable, just that the article *could be* not to the mark. Someone should rather concentrate adding healthy content to the article. Google WebSearch [1] 63,600 Hits, Please refer all the Press Releases, Television, and Magazine coverage across US [2]. The article looks to be a good candidate for wiki. The article contains references about the company, which a neutral article should normally have. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure. User:Ganesh J. Acharya was an employee of "this company's sister concern". [3] —Psychonaut (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure. I am an ex-employee of this company's sister concern and have nothing to do with this company any more and have no stakes with this company as on date. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 324 unique ghits, none of which are significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Fails notability guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the company's webpage cited above by Ganesh J. Acharya, there are multiple independent TV news stories about this company. While I am normally hesitant to endorse this kind of article, it seems clearly notable per the usual criteria, namely, coverage by outside independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Read the article; it contains no encyclopedia-worthy information. Blast Ulna (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be expanded further. It sounds a better solution than deleting the article, since the company is notable. I have less experience in editing articles of this type, so, I request other wiki contributors to participate. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2010 (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.