Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gonac

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

There are no secondary sources to indicate notability of this business. Alksub 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • 'Delete. This article does not provide any sources, as per the nominator, and everything not self-created I find via Google is for other brands, including some "cheese puffs", and most in non-English languages; doesn't meet WP:Notable. Claiming that you're in all the Canadian "states" didn't impress me either. Accounting4Taste 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete - no reliable source found in googling. Name crops up in many places, but unable to find any actual articles about the comany from a reliable source. For example, Google news turns up nothing. -- Whpq 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are other resources than google too. not having indexed all references by google does not mean that references do not exist at all. I do not see any problem with it. As for other languages showing up in google, keep in mind that there are over 1000 languages worldwide. I think this article should be left as it may be helpful for people selling their property. -- 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtom73 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Certainly Google is not the be all and end all of referencing. However, it turns up nothing, and the article provides none. As per wiki policy on verifiability, this isn't acceptable. -- Whpq 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I remember dmoz.org as a good source in the early years. Now, dmoz.org is practically useless because of editors who thinks their are gods and add articles and links which they like only and block others. Be tolerant, an article which is not good for you can be good for others. -- Mtom73 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry but being useful is not a reason to keep. A phone book is useful. This company is not notable per WP:CORP etc. Obina 10:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Is a phone book is useful for people selling homes? No, it is not. Can that article and company help people sell their home? Yes, it may. Look how notable Google was in 1996 and where is now. That company can become notable too. Mtom73 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: You have already stated you keep opinion above. If you want to add addiitonal commentary, please prefix is with something such as "comment" rather than another statement of "keep". -- Whpq 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And notability in wikipedia is established through reliable sources. You've offered no reliable sources. And all your statements indicate that you are using wikipedia as a business directory which is somthing wikipedia is not. -- Whpq 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - In business directory every company has phone contact, address contact, marketing slogans, etc. There are no phone contact information, marketing phrases in that article. Description about that company is neutral, non-advertising. Is it necessary to list all, in my point o view, low-importance news who mentioned that company? I do not want to make this article looks like a skyscraper with listing of dozens links to every low-important news, who published something about that company.-- Mtom73 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fail notability for companies. Doctorfluffy 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - They are listed at Dun and Bradstreet. Duns is notable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.20.212 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - D & B list everybody since they provide information about businesses including very small ones. That's their business and in no way indicates notability. -- Whpq 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment And a listing is 'trivial', what is needed is a non trivial article about this company. Dun is notable but many of the things on their list are not.Obina 16:03, 28 October 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.