Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teniverse

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teniverse

Delete, self-promotion of an embryonic company. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia documents companies that have already established themselves in some way. FreplySpang (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per FreplySpang. Friday (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but certainly not new as a user or researcher of how the Wikipedia solution works. Regarding the comments above, my comment is they are both very short. My first question is - have you thoroughly read the article? If so - please provide your specific comments about how the article violates a policy? What research told you the first statement above is correct? I would point out that Rizo on his page references a "why I'm a deletionist" page. This contains the very insighful observation that "New users need to first believe that their efforts are worthwhile and then that they will not find themselves instantly ridiculed for working on an article." Deletion - before a group even gets started on making an article decent - seems very quick on the draw (again reference Why Deletionist for his correct observation as to what happened with Usegroups - certainly not meritocracy - but those who were most energized dominated). I will also point out - the activities referenced in this article relate to key failings in internet architecture and something that is now happening in both the United States and Sweden. To get a benchmark on this delete recommendation, I have just spent some time checking Swedish companies in Wikipedia to understand why this article needs deleting relative to them. There are certainly many more articles in Wikipedia on very small as well as large Swedish companies. See for example Eniro AB. Eniro has been there as a fragment - I think - for months. Why keep Eniro? Or look at what is probably the largest known Swedish company - L.M. Ericsson. I have watched this article for months. I will admit, it is actually getting better, but it remains loaded with inaccuracies. Why not delete Ericsson when it is not only poorly written, but actually inaccurate? What harm is done by allowing an article sufficient time to evolve? Is 18 hours sufficient time? John Andrews....
• Delete. Advert for a company formed in 2005. Not notable. TheMadBaron 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, regardless of "sufficient time [for article] to evolve" since I don't think a case can be made for inclusion of a company which is not yet even in operation, except in extraordinary cases. MCB 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am the main contributor on this article. I made this posting yesterday. Hello,

I am one of the people working with the introduction of this new company. In regard to candidates for deletion notice we have read the wikipedia quidelines and tried to work within that framework.

In particular we had already noted the reference "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

This is not a garage company. The (open access) web-site will release in the near future. The article is being written in anticipation of that release. You may have read about Skype recently. The ambitions are in that category. If the article is not sufficiently neutral - please inform?

As we have understood, the guidance on Wikipedia is to lean away from deletion unless a clear violation has occured?

Vita Balode Stockholm, Sweden

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.