Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terramar Organics

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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terramar Organics

Delete vanity posting by User:Terramar Organics - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. All the information about it that I found on google was promotional or price lists etc. No independant reviews or works. Viridae 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Viridae; I sampled over 2 dozen of the google hits with the same results. Doc Tropics 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Coredesat 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Advertisement posing as article? ^Triana_C 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an Scottish internet retailer that differentiates itself by its "Fair Trade" policies. It is better known in the U.K. than in the United States. As a trailblazer, it has an influence beyond its size, like the pioneering companies that promoted the use of recycled paper, thereby enabling investments in recycling technology. Besides, the article is better now. TruthbringerToronto 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of how trailblazing or ethically sound the company is, the criteria is notability, against which I'm afraid it fails. Of the top 20 or so Google hits, all seem to be based on advertising material produced by the company itself, apart from one local directory listing.--MichaelMaggs 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, an internet retailer... ok: Alexa traffic rank: 1,814,839. It also fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. For an internet company you'd expect more independent coverage on the internet too. A lot of small companies seek to differentiate themselves with fair trade policies... it doesn't make them notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Motor, I've just userfied it.--Andeh 09:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Viridae, MichaelMaggs. Reeks of marketing. A fair bit of the content would more properly belong in generic articles about fair trade, organic clothing etc. rather than specifically under this company - and once you take that out, there's not much useful left. Paddles ^T_C 09:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no proof of notability. Page creator has been singularly unwilling to debate and defend despite several invitations to do so. Happy to be proved wrong and change my opinion, but there's nothing stirring me to do so at the moment. --Dweller 09:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Inner Earth 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Newspaper articles only mention in passing or are advertisement. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's more about organic clothing than about the company, anyway. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We99 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anand 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clear failure of WP:CORP. Pretty funny that the user name matches the company's name too. Pascal.Tesson 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable "trailblazer". Better known in the UK than the US, but still barely known in the UKBwithh 01:45, 25 June 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.