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 Keep. Topic meets WP:ORG, sources supporting notability and background have been added since the beginning of this AfD. Please keep in mind, Google searches are handy for getting a start on looking for sources but in themselves shouldn't be cited for their raw numbers, given that a search item with but 4 or 5 hits leading to peer reviewed academic or steadfastly edited trade journals might show notability, whilst 10,000 hits on a MySpace member or online product could be next to meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tekserve[edit]

After a search at Google News, only 4 passing mentions and 2 press releases were displayed. Additional references has been requested since April 2009, but, for lack of news articles that discuss the subject, delete. Alexius08 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I'll confess a conflict of interest with this page and this process; I previously disclosed my professional association during admin coaching early in my wiki career. My edits on this page since that time have been limited to reversions of clear breaches of WP:COS here and WP:COI here. For this reason I'll not participate in this process other than to assert notability, and offer to demonstrate this through page cleanup and addition of sufficient and significant sourcing intended to demonstrate the assertion. I urge all involved with this process to look over my shoulder as I attempt rescue to minimize any inherent biases I may have on this subject. I'll use Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies guidelines. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the ten new sources added, I believe we've far surpassed the bar for "in depth coverage by multiple independent sources." I suppose one could assert the NYT or NY magazine as "local", but the 1992 article in Home Office Computing is a pretty good source which meets all the criteria. I tried to limit my sources to those who seemed the most independent and reliable. I've got fifty others not quite as good. Should I add more? I'm going to begin the text cleanup and try to stick to the sources already listed. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this shop resided in Kansas City, there would not be a SINGLE mention of it online. The coverage in the New York papers does not constitute notability because these are in no way significant articles. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." This article is both a clear conflict of interest and its subject is in no way notable. Motobasura (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, based on "the largest independent single location Apple Specialist in the United States." However, this has enough qualifications to make my Keep weak. If it were "largest Apple Specialist in the US," I'd be less equivocal. But apparently there are non-independent Apple specialists that are larger; and even independent multi-location Apple specialists that are larger. That last one in particular bugs me. The whole idea of "it's the largest, as long as you exclude those that are large enough to expand to a second location" seems artificial to me. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, and I took the liberty of depuffing the claim of "largest." Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2009 (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.