Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBG Systems, Inc.

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 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EBG Systems, Inc.

Looks like an advertisement to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no obvious notability. Website not ranked by Alexa. No indepednent proof of client claims. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a self promoting article. the main chunk is not about EBG Systems by about a guy called Manny and his accomplisments/life story --Boookabooo 10:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Businesses whose names include systems or solutions are presumptively not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (by article creator) I don't understand the viewpoints stated here. The company has existed in various forms for decades, and is well-known and respected within the American business community, dealing with some of the nation's largest corporate entities. Emmanuel Garcia is featureds because he is the driving force behind this company. Tags were added to the article pointing out areas which needed improvement. I did some work to implement them and removed the tags. If you have other observations on how the article should be changed, or how it is composed in a distasteful manner, I am happy to conduct further edits. I am writing in the style that comes naturally to me. User: Emellis (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is your first go-round at the process, I can understand why it would be confusing. Nobody is saying your work was not good. The article seems to be fairly well-written. However, it seems to fail to meet the criterion on WP:NOTABILITY and is lacking sources. As it stands right now, this article is not something that should be on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can look for some verifiable sources and find a way to write an article that could be included here. Or, maybe you can try to get your feet wet in other articles and see what is normally included here. As it stands now, I also have to vote Delete on this one. Good luck! Fundamentaldan 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that accomplishment is not the same thing as notability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are not "existed ... for decades", "respected within the business community", or "dealing with major corporate entites". They are being verifiable by reliable third party sources. If we cannot find such coverage, it is very rare that we will find consensus on keeping an article. Writing style plays a relatively small role in this process. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 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.