Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timbercon

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. - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timbercon

Company does not appear notable A. B. 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Additional comments:
  • First see the talk page for the full history of this article. I attempted to fix some of the other problems of what was basically a vanity article, then realized it was likely not notable, so I tagged it for notability issues.
  • When I learned how small the company really was, I tagged it for deletion.
  • I think Timbercon is on the cusp of notability -- if a very low standard is used. Following the letter of the law re: corporate notability requirements, they technically meet the requirements: in this case, a Microsoft ad, a Microsoft small business case study in USA Today and a ranking as 62 out of 100 in a local list published by a non-notable local publication without its own WP article.
    • Re: non-notable media: note that the 3-person decorating business my spouse uses also more than meets the technical requirements since the owner has been written up in the Rome News-Tribune multiple times for his many decorating tips. (BTW, that's Rome, Georgia, not Italy.) I also don't think being the subject of a case study qualifies as notable.
  • Since I'm not very objective at this point (after cleaning up Timbercon link-spam in other articles) and since this article is borderline, I thought it best to get others' views rather than pull the trigger with a PROD or CSD tag.
  • I have notified the other editors who have edited this article in the past.--A. B. 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Thank you for your comments. Based on your input, I made some edits and added more company information. There was a mention about the 2003 article about employee count which is inaccurate today. Is there anything else you feel needs to be modified?

--Fiber-optics 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: -- Interested party: article's author; one of four accounts used by one or more employees to link-spam other articles

• Keep and cleanup, removing all advertising-like text and photos. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article. You may consider removing the AfD now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Clean-up addresses the vanity; notability still not proven --A. B. 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. At best should have a note in Microsoft Office but even that seems questionable. JoshuaZ 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing indicates that the company meets WP:CORP. I get 7 hits on google news, but 6 of them are press releases and one is a passing mention. It just doesn't seem that this company is any more notable than millions of other small companies, and wikipedia isn't a business directory. - Bobet 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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.