Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintek

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 Deizio talk 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintek

Nintek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:CORP. This article has been written with the assumed intent of advertising information about the company, and reads as if it has been written by a person working for the company question. While it may be a company, it's activities or operations have had no significant impact on made no significant contribution to the industry in which it resides. Article also lacks significant citations, particularly in relation to financial status and such information could only be known by a company insider. Thewinchester 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As a local, these guys have zero retail presence except on the net. They didn't even advertise in yesterday's West (which has two A3 pages devoted to classified ads for computer stores). Fails WP:CORP absolutely. MER-C 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the Primary Author for this article. The company is one of the top 3 online retailers in Australia, and is widely considered to be the top innovator within the IT industry. All financial information is cited in the West Australian article. The company has now been the subject of 5 non-trivial articles regarding their bulk buying project, and is facing increasing industry criticism as a result of their operations. Suggest the article be improved to conform with Wikipedia standards, instead of being deleted. Atchung 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Additional Supporting Comments by Proposer. Also invoking WP:V as an additional reason for deletion of this article. I still doubt heavily that even with a massive re-write it would come close to meeting either the letter or the spirit of WP:CORP regardless of any increased conversation about it's business practice. It's practices have no significant national or trans-national impact, and the issue is not receiving significant coverage in the mainstream press, invoking WP:CORP#fn_6_back as these are not major authored works, but one time press articles about a minor and localised issues. The company is private and is not used in the calculation of ASX indices. My request for deletion under WP:CORP remains. Further to the citations of financial status, this was information provided to the newspaper in question by the company themselves and would not meet the criteria of WP:V and WP:REF being that the information is not independently verifiable. Consistent with WP:V, such citations do not meet the Burden_of_evidence section of this policy. thewinchester 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thewinchester (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I rarely say keep about a debatable corporate article, but 1/the article itself is weitten objectively and 2/itdoes seem to be a matter of public controversy--and an interesting one.No policy says mainstream press is a requirement, but rather the press apprpriate for the subject field. this is the english language WP, not the US-UK WP, and I will go by what the Australians here think. DGG 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The company just sorta meets WP:CORP.1 but they look like press releases not independant writing. IT doesn't help that this is the only article User:Atchung has worked on - so his arguements don't sway me very much.Garrie 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete They have little to no impact on the market in which they operate in Western Australia, other than possibly an online presence. As a computer retailer myself and former IT support person, I'd never heard of this company until reading the deletion debate - I note also that none of Arrow Computers, Austin Computers, PLE or Trinix have their own articles despite being regularly advertised and well-known in Perth with considerable trading volumes. (Note: I'm not suggesting they *should* have articles, anything you could write about them would probably be self-sourced and fail WP:CORP) I'd also note that substantiation of financial information from The West Australian may not be sufficient as there are questions as to the editorial policy at the West - see that article for details. Orderinchaos78 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The statement that Dell is a competitor is false (reference says they provide a service similar to Dell's), if adhering to the letter of the law, you could call 3 obscure and brief articles non-trivial but I'd stick to the spirit and delete it. If the company grows and actually becomes a source of competition, re-create. Also, only 1 non-deletion based link to other articles and it's just a list of companies WLU 17:39, 14 December 2006 (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.