Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RND Automation & Engineering

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RND Automation & Engineering

An article about a non-notable company written by its president. Prod tag was removed with a plea on the talk page. I admit I was not clear in the prod tag, as I did not link to WP:CORP and WP:NPOV for the author to check out. Nevertheless, the company needs to satisfy WP:CORP and be written up by a neutral party if it is to have an article. Therefore, delete. -IceCreamAntisocial 01:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as utterly NN. No matches on Lexis, fails WP:CORP. Pan Dan 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is asserted by references - newspaper article and the fact that the company's president teaches high-level seminars about Autodesk as well as running his company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Buckner 1986 05:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong delete Total Vanity and self-promtion. MiracleMat 09:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was almost persuaded by TruthBringerToronto's argument, which is a good one, but in the end this is a private company founded in 2005 and turning over under a million dollars, in fact less than the dollar value of my house, plus the article was created by the company's founder, so WP:VSCA and lack of evidence of meeting WP:CORP (multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources) makes the article on this company a delete for me. Whether an article on the founder would be a delete is another matter; I guess it would since there is precious little coverage from which to garner verifiable biographical data. Guy 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It started as a vanity page, but even so it was relatively neutral. The article has since been edited by at least one other editor and now appears to be NPOV. In light of the newspaper article in the Bradenton Herald and the listing on ThomasNet, notability and verifiability are established. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this company would dissapear in an hour, the sector in which they compete wouldn't even burp. That is a good definition of not-notable for a company. Plus, if the president of this company has enough time to have a sideline of teaching seminars on Autodesk, that is not a good sign that this is a notable company. Dipics 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete - per Dipics --mathewguiver 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notability estabished. Doesnt sound or look like an advertisement to me. It's been referenced. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete the sole real third-party reference is a fluff piece from a local paper that starts with: "It's pretty laid back at RND Automation & Engineering LLC when it comes to hours and atmosphere." That does not qualify I believe in order to meet WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 23:23, 9 September 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.