Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/411 PAIN


 * 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

411 PAIN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company does not appear to meet the WP:CORP criteria for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH. At the time of nomination, most of the cited sources do not contribute to notability: they are all primary sources (8, 11), routine coverage such as press releases (2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10), etc. The only source that appears to have anything about the company is 1, and although I can't read it in full, the article appears to be about the type of service in general, not this specific company. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep I spotted this company when researching something in highbeam research and googling it seems it is a major firm in this field. Highbeam Research has plenty of sources for 411-PAIN. Florida Trend cites it as a leading firm in its field in the state. That the article has been hijacked by User:411 Painwiki and countless ips adding spam links attracting neutrality/cleanup tags does not justify this being deleted. It needs watching and protecting. It meets guidelines for companies on wikipedia and also passes WP:GNG by number of reliable sources which exist on it.I can think of numerous companies on here and which are missing which are actually notable but not many sources write in detail on the history of the company and most sources are derived from newspaper articles mentioning them such as acquisitions and charity involvement etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (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.