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. W.marsh 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The grounds of this company's notability is contested and there has been thus far a demonstrated inability to provide verifiable reliable independent sources to establish notability. The article has been speedily deleted previously for copyright violation/no notability assertion. There is some form of notability assertion now, but the validity of it has been discussed a great deal, see Talk:Corporate Creations. Just as a note (not a deletion criteria, but still something to keep in mind), this article was created (and recreated) by User:Jimsfins4 who is an admitted employee of the company in question, so I take his assertions of the company's notability with a grain of salt in the absence of sources that I can see. At this point, I don't believe the company is notable given that the only seemingly non-trivial source I can verify is a paid advertisement section in Fortune magazine that was sponsored not by the company, but by an organization that they are a member of: [1] Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete when there is no independent evidence for notability, then COI might be the deciding factor--I would AGF if there were any support besides directory listings and awards for which there is no real source. DGG 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It sounds like a good, nice company - and the founder sounds like a subject for a biography article in the future, but the company itself does not appear to meet notability standards at all in that industry. I am disturbed that the author (an admitted officer of the company) and another guy that is a suspected sockpuppet are pushing this article this hard and using a Fortune Magazine article as a reference that turned out to be a paid advertisement on closer examination. Dougieb 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember assume good faith as far as the other editor...hasn't done anything too "disruptive" that I've seen. Making last ditch efforts for notability isn't a crime. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I know. The first guy was honest at least. I'm just not understanding the HARD push for inclusion. Hey, with 150 employees, they are only one "disturbed/disgruntled worker with an AK" away from a permanent and VERY notable article (and if that ever occurs, I will be sure and note that it is minority owned - LOL). I also said that I would write the damn thing if they just sent me something notable. It just burns me on that Fortune Magazine reference. I was in total agreement with you for inclusion with that reference, then when I found the truth, I smelled fish. Dougieb 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is my final comment regarding the Corporate Creations article. The Fortune article was mentioned at the company's Press page, then listed by me along with many other articles. The apparent focus on press coverage as a factor of notability is naive because most press coverage is influenced by publicists. The real issue is whether Corporate Creations provides services for major companies. That fact is easily confirmed by reviewing the Raves page of Corporate Creations and confirming those claims at state sites. Dougieb's sarcasm seems to dominate his comments. Maybe he needs some T&A to soften his edge. Truthandaccuracy 12:10 am, 6 June 2007.
  • Comment. Having some form of media coverage from a reliable source is one way to establish notability, but not the only one. It's just typically the easiest and most clearcut way to do it for a company. I'm sure there are hundreds upon hundreds of tiny little niche companies that happen to do services for much larger ones...that doesn't make them notable IMHO. It's not too far down that line of thought to say that a sandwich guy is notable because he sells food in the lunchroom of a big company...like the one in my company's lunchroom...ok, now I'm hungry. Now, if it has gained widespread attention in the public eye (let's say the sandwich guy got angry one day and wiped his rear with the sandwiches and it got exposed in the news...just as an example:-P), then that's probably notable. This big huge companies usually have to publically disclose who they contract for things, especially legal services. This amounts to a trivial listing...no one is going out of there way to make note of a topic they aren't affiliated with. I hope that made some form of sense...I'm getting some food before I pass out. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, I am ALWAYS down for some T&A to take off the edge - ESPECIALLY Florida T&A which I have enjoyed on many a spring break. Interesting sandwich analogy Cquan (lol). T&A, no offense intended - just joking around. Don't take any of my sarcasm seriously - just trying to have fun. Unfortunately, using the "Raves" page of Corporate Creations just isn't a reliable 3rd party source. As for then confirming those claims at state sites, this unfortunately was already argued constitutes original research - and this exact same paradigm was already discounted in the Registered Agents article as a reference. I argued FOR this, so I back you on this 100% and you're preaching to the choir. I absolutely agree with you that state online databases should be allowed as a reference. I just think that from the article as it sits now, it's like, "ABC Co. is owned by this guy - and this guy did this stuff." So... the article IMHO should be on the guy, then mention that he founded this company rather than an article about the company talking about the guy. My offer to do an article on the company still stands if I can get some notability. The Office Depot thing is a big deal. I had no idea that any Fortune 500 company - or 1,000 company for that matter was represented outside the Big Four. If this article stands as-is, that opens the door to "Clem's Agent Services" (SC) on the grounds that Clem is transgendered and gives money to charity. Dougieb 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent sources can be found. I only found the fortune article mentioed above and was rather confused by it as well for a moment. Moreover, the article contained three links to search screens of state datbases, that I removed since I would consider this as an inivitation to do original reasearch about which corporation has which registered agent. Tikiwont 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In defense of Jimsfins and T&A, I personally have no problem with links to search screens of state databases since they generally do not accept URLs with parameters for reference purposes (and the SOS databases are the most current source of information and don't require more than putting in a name to get the information which I think is grey area for "original research" policy). No disrepect or offense meant to Tiki though who I've butted heads with often, but respect. The Fortune article however was a complete shill piece and really annoyed me since I was fooled by it as well. Dougieb 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on grounds of non-notability; the company's site does not provide any financial information (such as 10k filings), and since it is a private, rather than a stock exchange listed company, it is probable that the company's income and assets are relatively insignificant. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 12 June 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.