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. After two relistings, the consensus seems to be "delete". There is one "keep" !vote but it does not explain how the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If the author believes they can improve the article to the point of meeting these guidelines, I will userfy it on request. MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Company Folders (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)

Not notable. Ref 1 may or may not be a reliable source, but it's basically an interview where the founder says how good he did; ref 2 isn't third party, it's written by the company founder; Ref 3 is the firm's own press release, Ref 4 is a directory entry, ref 5 shows the company is one of the 5000 most rapidly growing, which is a trivial distinction, usually obtained by still being not yet notable. Part of a press campaign, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Gendelman. Press campaigns do not belong in WP--they're advertising, and we don't publish advertising. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand taking down Vladimir Gendelman's article. I knew going into that one it was a stretch, but not having much experience in BLP space I thought it'd at least be good practice. But the company has distinction within it's industry, and I frankly feel like the only reason why this AfD is in place is because of the article on Gendelman. I've been upfront and cooperative with everyone and I feel like things have gotten out of hand. PeRshGo (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing anything beyond press-releases, niche trade journals and pure PR. Fails WP:NCOMPANY on a number of counts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Small local company with fewer than 10 employees and no national notice. From the creator's other edits & some conversation with him this doesn't appear to be deliberate promotion/advertising but part of an effort to inclusively document local businesses. While understandable this still fails Wikipedia:Notability. JamesG5 (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2015 (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.