Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manifest Limited

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manifest Limited

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

Appears to be an advert for a non-notable company. I've not speedied just in case there's a good reason to keep it, but at present there's nothing to suggest notability Iridescenti 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • weak keep Respectable sources. DGG 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough sources. Abeg92contribs 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we need articles on corporations that are essentially invisible to the general public, unless they are extremely significant in some way. As a marketing firm that assists businesses in marketing to businesses, in a single industry, this is not something we need in an encyclopedia. And we certainly don't need the Google Maps link showing where its office is... Brianyoumans 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't know who reads Wikipedia. We have plenty of articles that are not of interest to the general public but to a specific group of people. Your comment is not based on policy. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep--there are two totally respectable sources. If sourcing is enough for N, as is being widely claimed, then they are notable. (Though I consider client lists in such articles to be internal linkspam). DGG 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The list of clients helps establish the notability of the company. They wouldn't be half as notable if their clients were much smaller companies. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I recognize this, but it creates a problem in terms of the generation of linkspam. The only general solution I can think of is to list but not link. Agreed, this is not really much of a problem here, because only a few companies are listed. But some such articles have many more. Just mentioning it. DGG 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is little more than a press-release mission statement and a partial list of clients. There's no actual "article" here. Ford MF 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on sources. The mission statement is obvious for this type of company so it can be removed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While the company has several clients which are notable in their own right, the article seems rely rather heavily on name-dropping. As Brianyoumans' reply seems to suggest, it is important for the entity to have some sort of claim to fame. This second paragraph — which seems to provide some information about the company — reads like it was ripped from some sort of prospectus. Aarktica 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Note to Iridescenti. When in doubt, please use the {{prod}} tag; if that approach fails, you can always bring it here. Aarktica 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I didn't prod it because I thought it was borderline enough to warrant a debate (the fact that it has four keep and three delete !votes seems to bear that out). If I was certain, I'd have db-spammed it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 4 April 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.