Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Journal Experts


 * 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 mostly for more solid arguments from the Delete side.-- JForget 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a recreated and disputed speedied article for a company that doesn't meet the notability guidelines; no reliable sources that attest to the notability of the company. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This company is used by scholars in nearly every country in the world, and it is affecting scholarship in nearly every academic discipline. It is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Many, many articles are about purely local businesses; this one is global. Scholars in every country are eager to find an NPOV treatment of this company. Many scholarly journals recommend this company for their non-English-speaking authors who need help with their English. A web search on "American Journal Experts" will prove this is true. The evaluations of the company by those peer-reviewed journals are sufficient to establish the notability of the company.BlueDevil1 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete (A7)  Fails notability for corporations because no reliable third-party sources that I can find mention it. Appears to have conflict of interest issue as well. Considering that the article confesses to the company's use of spam to attract employees and business, this article appears to be part of that effort as well. MKoltnow 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I feel that merely asserting notability reminds me of garage bands who could assert notability by claiming to be "the best band in Surrey" (for instance), I will consider this article not to satisfy the conditions in WP:CSD. MKoltnow 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete unless there are some third party sources. Not a speedy since it asserts notability. DGG (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the user, some third party sources previously mentioned only on the talk page have been added to the article.BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The company is small, but a lot of people around the world will be looking for a synthesis of information about it, and we should want them to look here. Bazoomti (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This does nothing to address the issue of verifiability through reliable third-party sources. The onus of demonstrating notability rests on those wanting the article kept. Do forgive if this sounds WP:BITEy, but this contributor is practically a single purpose account. Its first dozen edits are spelling corrections, which are much appreciated. Ironically, that could indicate that it has a conflict of interest since the company in question is in the business of copyediting. MKoltnow 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Insufficient sourcing to verify notability. Unless independent, reliable, and verifiable sources can be listed that support notability under WP:CORP or the general notability guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. BlueDevil1 has added links to several reputable journals who recommend authors to use the services of this company. They seem like good third party sources, so keep and clean up, not delete. --Bduke (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CORP states in its notes that "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." I do not interpret that to mean that a scholarly journal recommending a service satisfies notability. The journals themselves are reliable third-party sources for the topics they cover, but they are not writing about this company in a scholarly capacity. MKoltnow 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but they have considered it notable enough to recommend to their authors. I company like this would have to have massive notability to have a scholarly article written about it. I think you are being too rigorous in interpreting the guideline. --Bduke (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend the mechanic on Main Street for changing your timing belt, but that does not make him notable. I was making the distinction between when an otherwise reliable source writes about its field of expertise and when it simply makes mention or endorsement of a service. This company continues to fail WP:CORP for pretty obvious reasons. If it truly were notable, there would be an article about it somewhere, as opposed to a reference to it. So far, the author has supplied testimonials from happy customers, but that does not establish notability. For all we know, the testimonials could be paid advertisements. I dug through the first two hundred google hits, and they were all either testimonials or self-promotion. MKoltnow 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we are just going to have to disagree. I see no comparison between you recommending a mechanic and a reputable scientific journal recommending an editor to improve the articles that they will be publishing. I agree that more sources would be welcome however. --Bduke (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having looked at the sources provided, they basically amount to advertisements (providing product code for discount, etc). Ads are not considered to meet the guidelines for notability.  Pastordavid (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (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.