Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asix


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Asix
Vanity page of non-notable company. Author deleted PROD tag. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not vanity to survive 13 years in the peruvian market, it is history. Probably it is non-notable for the companies in the first world, but in Peru this is truly hard. That is why I believe that it has to be mention, please help me to improve my article to meet WP requirements if possible.--Czevallos 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is deleted, maybe I should write an article of the Peruvian new media market history, is that possible?--Czevallos 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Sam Blanning(talk) 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment for Czevallos First, first-person words such as "our" should be deleted at all costs. If an article has "our," it's advertising, which is not allowed. In addition, the article needs to be copy edited (for spelling, grammar, and whatnot). Third, and perhaps most importantly, some other external links or references would help. If there are any other sites that show why the company is significant or has given it an award, that would be extremely beneficial to the article (even if that web page is not in English). -- Kicking222 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've copyedited the article a bit, and added some wikilinks. Best of luck on the AfD. :] --Keitei (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Hard to see how a person from New Jersey who doesn't speak any Spanish can judge the notability of a company in Peru. The article might be advertising, but even so it should just be cleaned up. N. Harmon 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, there are no reliable third-party sources for this article in any language, so I fail to see how language skills are relevant here. If the article was verified by Spanish-language newspapers, it might be relevant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how my location makes a difference. The fact that the founder of the company had to create the article speaks against its notability.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't say I approve of spam/vanity. No proof of notability (yet, at least).  Wickethewok 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in cases of self-promotion, there is a strong presumption against the article, and I can't say that this one demonstrates notability. Should we be giving vanity-pushers the benefit of the doubt? No way! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another Delete vote from Jersey, btw. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Wikipedia is not (yet) a yellow pages style phone directory Bwithh 22:11, 28 May 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.