Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauntlet Systems

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 of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gauntlet Systems

Was marked for speedy delete but its not one. Looks like a nn company so Delete --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The company might be real, but they haven't done anything worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Fails to meet WP:CORP (proposed policy). Peyna 02:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if its so unnotable, why the whole filled in box? Don't see why there is a problem with it. Zordrac (talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because someone was bored and had enough time to fill it in? I could make a very long and involved page about myself that would be very accurate, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because I haven't done anything worth of being in any encyclopedia. Nor has this company. Peyna 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that one of the company founders (Adam messinger (talk · contribs) and 68.167.205.26 (talk · contribs) appear to be one and the same.) filled in all of the corporate directory information from firsthand knowledge does not indicate notability.

    The way to write about one's relatives, one's organization, or one's company (see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas) is to be scrupulous about using (and citing) third-party sources for every single thing in the article, and to not use firsthand knowledge anywhere. (Articles written that way rarely even come to AFD in the first place.) If this is not possible, because there are no third-party sources, then one should not write an article. If one does, the article is highly likely to eventually be deleted, as here. Uncle G 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like a start up that may go places, but not yet. Jtmichcock 03:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. New company NOn-notable Olorin28 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - founded in 2005? http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Gauntlet+Systems%22 generates 41 hits, hardly notable. The only bluelinked key person listed in the infobox leads to a dab page, of which the only blue link is a footballer. I think not. Josh Parris#: 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Searching, I find nothing written about this company that isn't either sourced from the company itself or from one of its founders. I find no published works of any kind from sources that are independent of the company and its founders. There's no independent news or magazine coverage. There are no books about the company. Consumer organizations haven't issued any reports about the company. The company thus fails to satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion. Since it is not part of a ranking list or a stock market index, it fails to satisfy the secondary criteria as well. Delete. Uncle G 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it says its a start-up; we all know how many of those promtly become shut-downs and how few become Hewlett-Packard or Microsoft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Filling in boxes is easy. Getting your company to be so successful that it is referred to by non-customers and by the press is difficult. This start up is not yet successful enough to be an industry leader. Geogre 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Per Uncle G. Ifnord 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page, advertising.--MONGO 03:29, 7 December 2005 (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.