User talk:Et bravo/Posigrip

Notability
All none of the references in the article so far appear to qualify as significant secondary source coverage as described in the WP:GNG. Is there any indication that this company is notable? VQuakr (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: notability
Given that "notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article," I believe that there is sufficient indication that the company is notable. While it is difficult to find quality references on the using internet search engines, my local university library has dozens of articles from third-party publications on the company and their line of brands. These third-party publications include Government Product News, New Equipment Digest and Food Engineering.

I will work on improving the quality of the references cited in the article and change the article so that it does not sound like an advertisement. I've done my research on the company and believe it is a very notable company. A Wikipedia article on Posigrip would benefit the public and Wikipedia community. Posigrip has been around since 1986, has authorized distributors on selling their line of brands in 77 countries and was listed as one of the fastest growing companies in the world on the International Inc. 500 in 1995.

If you have any additional suggestions on how to improve this page to avoid deletion, please share, as it seems that a large company with a diverse range of unique products that are used around the world does not have an article about it on Wikipedia. Thanks, Et bravo (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably make sense to include secondary sources rather than press releases though, no? Per policy, and article should not be based on primary sources. The list of products section was most concerning to me from an advert standpoint, I will go ahead and remove that and take off the tag. Since you obviously disagree with the proposed deletion, I also will take it to AfD instead to get some broader attention. For the record I did look for secondary sources in GNEWS before proposing deletion. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a follow up, I just did a bit more of a search for the other sources that you mention above; all I can find is trivial listings of the company's products. A notable company would have in-depth coverage in secondary sources; if that exists please point me to it. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe as every popular person has a wiki page, Posigrip is also a growing company which deserves a wiki page. Also, it has a parent company which is doing business as Posigrip, Acousti and I believe Acousti is an already well grown and known company and therefore deserves a wiki page. More details about Acousti can be found here: INC.com We can imagine its popularity from its revenue and growth. Thanks! Signature: Cool1guy


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for including subjects that  are 'popular'. Wikipedia's policy is 'verifiability not  truth', whch  means that  the criteria for inclusion  must  unquestionably  be met. If notability  cannot be asserted with  references that  conform  to  our reliable sources policy, then unfortunately  there can be no  article. Press releases, and any  other self populated material or directory  sites  cannot  be accepted. An article deletion  discussion will  entail  deeper research  but  will probably  conclude with  the same result. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a place where popular artists, companies, industries and Stores information is shared which makes people rate Wikipedia 10/10 in everything. As everything can be found in Wikipedia and its just one stop for everything. And therefore every popular and established company must have a wiki page and therefore Posigrip must have a wiki page too. Cool1guy (talk)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for including subjects that  are 'popular'. All  articles must  be referenced to  reliable sources according  to  Wikipedia policies and criteria. Posigrip  does not  meet them per WP:ORG and WP:N. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you just tell me out which guideline is not been met ? As far as I have concerned and read those guidelines, it seems to be that they are being met. Cool1guy (talk