Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bite Communications

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bite Communications

Bite Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I originally tagged this article as A7 because it does not assert that the subject is notable. It was reasonably suggested that AfD is more appropriate because the subject purportedly has extremely large corporate clients. I took a quick look in google and gnews and got plenty of hits, but the subject is a PR firm, so that might just mean it is successfully propagating its clients' press releases. Rather than have me spend the night on google trying to prove the negative, let's hear from persons in the know why the subject belongs in WP. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because there has been very little assertion of notability in this article, and the author has a conflict of interest related to the group of companies (he is the CEO of the parent company of the company in question here). Leebo⁸⁶ 05:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nom is correct that it's incumbant upon somebody to assert notability and back it up with sources, not to force us to do endless google searches!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. One of 6 divisions of a group having only 900 employees (which seems to work with group clients), so it's certain to be pretty small despite the number of offices. A redirect to Next Fifteen Communications per WP:CORP may be warranted. Ohconfucius 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, of course -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as above; unlike Text 100 this makes no assertion of notability. In fact, i believe this qualifies as A7.--CastAStone|^(talk) 00:36, 2 February 2007 (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.