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. Veinor (talk to me) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAAV, Inc.[edit]

WAAV, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable company. Link spam within the article itself, only edits of the author were to this article or to other articles in an attempt to link to this particular one. The article has held the notability tag for days, and not been touched. Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been notified of the request for deletion tag. I have added some of the articles in America that reference the company's products in major American newspapers and magazines. I hope this clears any of your concerns for notability. Thank you.


I know employees of this company personally. I know that they have some great products and they have many customers. They were featured in last Sunday's Boston Globe. Please read up on the american press this company has. 24.218.204.89 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick quote from the WP:CORP article: "...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 

   * independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and
   * reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..." In addition to being at the same location as Lotus 123 and Anderson Consulting first began - clearly the articles provided in the page do meet this criterion.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively comfortable with the refs in the Boston Globe, Mass High Tech and CNN Money (which is short, but focused on the company) as indicating there's a reasonable amount of notability, personally. I could be wrong, of course. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psst... DGG? *points upwards* You opined a keep up there. You might want to choose one. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:48, 3 March 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.
More