Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuComm International

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, default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NuComm International

NuComm International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has been around for almost a year, and has been subject to regular tides of promotional edits and negative criticism, but in all this time I've yet to see a single reliable source added to supplement the sole link to the company's website. It's pretty much just been a battleground for current employees vs. disgruntled ex-employees.

At this point it's borderline speedy-able as an unsourced blatant advert, as there's nothing here that I wouldn't expect to find on a fluffy "about us" page on the company's own website. However, I'm listing it for a full AfD since it's been around for so long and to allow for the possibility that good RSs can be found and the article cleaned up. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability is not asserted. Akihabara 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a copyvio too, the entire history section was copied from [1]. MER-C 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being non-notable. Being a company is in it self not enough. Bjelleklang - talk 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, unsourced. --Shirahadasha 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability is not asserted and fails WP:CORP Orderinchaos78 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've cleaned up the article and provided references to my redone History section. Acid0057 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Acid0057: Thank you for your hard work. However, are there other sources that might better meet WP:RS standards? Of the 4 links currently present, 1 is the company's own website, 2 are to the company's press releases, and the last is a brief description (self-description, most likely) on a job site, which any company posting job listings can have... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment AbsolutDan: I'm trying but with a Newer company like this it is hard to find resources other than the companies own postings. The press releases are compiled from an indepentant resource. Doesn't that count? Acid0057 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Ok I've added more independant news stories on NuComm. Is this better? Acid0057 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Looks better - can't vouch for the reliability of the new sources, but consider my opinion to be Neutral now. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now to see if Acid0057 can come up with more sources. Realkyhick 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the support. Acid0057 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I worked with Acid0057 to improve this article. With more sources and less resemblance to the company's site, the article is showing potential. Idjit 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks Idjit. I'm thinking that this article is upholding Wiki's standards now. Acid0057 13:43, 8 January 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.