Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axonai


 * 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. Proto /// type  12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Axonai
Per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP, only 812 Google results, prod was contested-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (weak) For this article, WP:CORP is the applicable standard, not WP:SPAM. Invoking WP:SPAM in this case is not consistent with WP:assume good faith (IMO).  Will freely change my vote to keep if WP:CORP is met in the next 5 days. The Crow 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, articles that fall under WP:SPAM are "articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual". The Axonai article (as of now) reads like an advertisement for a company, not like an encyclopedia article, thus (in my perspective) it falls under WP:SPAM. Also note that I am doing my best to try to assume good faith and remain civil, though if I am not, feel free to remind me.-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any incivility here. Just in general I feel like "spam" is a strong charge to make against a single article because it suggests self-serving intent on the part of the creator, and the problems with the article are adequately covered by WP:CORP and WP:NPOV.  The Crow 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:CORP, but needs to be written less like an advertisement. I have added the advert tag and linked in the references which were easy to find online, and definitely seem to be nontrivial published work about the company from external sources.  Mango juice talk 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep. One of the sources, the Purdue Research Park source, is apparently a newsletter for the office building campus where Axonai is housed; this hardly seems independent.  The Journal and Courier is a local paper in Lafayette, Indiana (with a bare-bones website, I might add), but the Indiana Business review interview is the real deal.  2 is technically multiple, but this barely counts.  Mango juice talk 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see how this meets WP:CORP. References in published works consist of a company press release published in 3 different hometown newspapers (if you notice, it appears to be all the same press release).  Google shows only 507 hits, many unrelated. Company website is a shell with no info on partners or customers.  No specific employment figures, no revenue figures, no management names.  Someday it may be notable; I'm not seeing it today.  The Crow 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to my web search, the Inside Indiana Business article was broadcast on WFYI Indianapolis, so I think that one counts. No argument about the other two, except that they aren't press releases.  Even the Purdue business park article has a byline from someone not based in the company.  Mango juice talk 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the criteria states that the "company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Axonai article, on the other hand, has been referenced by only one notable published work (the other two sources don't seem to be notable. Also, the Purdue Research Park source most likely isn't independent from the Axonai company) -- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No argument here. I just like to do the research, present the facts, and let the community decide.  To me, 2 is multiple, but that's about as weak as you can get. :)  Mango juice talk 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Creator is User:Mceneviz. CEO of the company is Cesar Ceneviz. Coincidence? We think not. ~ trialsanderrors 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * shrug* Maybe, maybe not. Lots of people document their own employers, hobbies, academic fields, schools, whatever.  As long as it's notable and meets Wikipedia standards, no problem.  The Crow 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:AUTO: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ~ trialsanderrors 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AUTO references this observation from WP:V: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. WP:V is a Wikipedia policy; WP:AUTO is only a guideline. The Crow 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So? ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, WP:V says self-documented sources are allowed, within limits of notability and POV. WP:AUTO is not a policy. The Crow 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? It's a guideline and I tend to adhere to it. I have no problems with this article being verifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTO is a good guideline, and vanity articles tend to have significant problems of NPOV and verifiability. However, I don't think articles should be deleted on the basis of WP:AUTO when those problems have been resolved, and the subject of the article is worth including.  The difference, I think, is that vanity articles that no one has bothered to verify or make neutral can be deleted because of the concerns in WP:AUTO, but non-vanity articles with these same problems, we should keep around and hope they get fixed up.  Mango juice talk 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and The Crow -- getcrunk   juice   19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP & WP:AUTO. Death Eater Dan  ( Muahaha ) 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Another strtup with a great idea but whose time has not yet come. Less notable than SILO, recently deleted. BlueValour 03:04, 23 June 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.