Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnaJet


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

AnaJet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence that company meets WP:CORP. Fails WP:GNG, as there do not appear to be multiple non-trivial reliable sources discussing the subject; most available content is press releases and/or otherwise primary/tangential. Previously deleted under A7 due to lack of claim of importance and G11 as advertising. Kinu t /c  23:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is evidence that this company should be in Wikipedia. The company is not advertised by the companies they supply machines to which are already in wikipedia(alphagraphics, Sir Speedy). These companies are referenced in businessweek, just like Anajet. If these companies have space on wikipedia, then so should AnaJet. Their validity with less sources of information should allow this page to stand. I may be an amateur on wikipedia, and I am just learning to cite my sources. MantisMB (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why appealing to the existence of other articles as a justification for keeping an article is not usually workable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tagged for speedy db-corp, no indication of significance. EEng (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete but not speedily. The article does list sources, including sources that would contribute towards establishing notability, but falls short.  The Businessweek source is a directory entry.  It serves to verify facts, but does nothing to establish notability.  The A E Mag source is primarily about Direct to Garment printers with some discussion of Anajet's product.  The Orange County Business Journal provides coverage about the company as the primary subject, but the publication is local in nature.  Taken together, this does not represent significant enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the meaning of speedy under db-corp.  db-corp allows deletion where the article contains no credible indication of significance, which this one doesn't.  No need to waste time investigating sources if the article's author couldn't be bothered to say why anyone would care.  Since you still say it should be deleted anyway, you should have left the speedy tag on and saved the rest of us time fooling with this AfD. EEng (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage in some reliable sources is a credible claim of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, A7 reads, An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. It goes on to say, The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The clear implication is that claim must appear in the article text itself; whether sources cited in the article support that claim or indeed, whether or mot the article cites any sources at all, has nothing to do with it.  The intent is to save work, including the work of consulting sources. in cases where the person who started the article was himself unable to indicate why anyone would want to know anything about its topic. EEng (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you may be right. Be we all agree on Delete, yes? EEng (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Whpq that semi-decent sources preempt A7. For example, most specialized articles (e.g. dense set in mathematics) do not assert their significance; their significance is established by reliable sources (in this case books and papers) written on them. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Fails under notability under WP:Company. The last Afd had a spurious comparison to companies like Sir Speedy - that company has dozens of reliable sources giving it non-trivial coverage; Anajet practially none at all. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2011 (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.