Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bafendo


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bafendo
Originally speedied as non-notable, but the author protested. I don't think the business is large enough or important enough to warrant an article. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom and the obvious self-promotional nature of the article. As far as I know, an author's objection is no barrier to a speedy deletion, only to a prod. VoiceOfReason 08:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Slightly modified; see below. VoiceOfReason 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bafendo is large enough for an article on Wikipedia fore it is the small who will some day be the big company that it is meant to be. Bafendo is a force to be reckoned with. Bafendo is worthy and it is very important to the people it helps and to the people who love it! --Bafendo 09:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You may not think it is not old enough but it is. We are an important company to our clients! We deserve a chance! We demand a chance! Bafendo may only be three years old but we are good at what we do and we will not be bullied into deletion. We deserve this and we're not giving it up without a fight! And anybody who thinks they can bully the small is a fool! Fore the small will one day grow big and crush the ones who tried to hold them back! We've struggled before but no more! This is it do not delete our archive we deserve to be here as much as Microsoft. Sure we aren't an international corporation but we have something they don't have... reliable products and affordable service! And I'd be a fool not to stop the deletion of our archive! So think about what I said and think about not being another barrier which a small business must face! As I said before... I will fight this!!! --Bafendo 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOT (section specific). Sorry, but this has to be deleted.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because Bafendo himself has stated that currently his company is small and only in the future it will be the big company that it is meant to be. So once it has become that big company, then try again. :) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not and never has been a speedy candidate. Do not use "speedy" as shorthand for "I really, really think this should be deleted".  It is very annoying.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to meet CSD A7 readily enough. VoiceOfReason 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A7 does not include companies. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm doubting you, but would you mind citing a source for that? The criterion itself says that it applies to "unremarkable people or groups", but perhaps there's a further elaboration elsewhere that I'm not familiar with. Regardless, though, this particular article while nominally about a company is almost exclusively about the personal exploits of one Mr. Bryce Frier... and I wouldn't be surprised if he were the sole employee. I've seen far iffier articles selected for speedy deletion by administrators. VoiceOfReason 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's three sources you could use. a) My word as someone who has been closing AfDs and dealing with speedies for the past 9 months (not perfect, I know).  b) The actual wording of the A7 CSD &mdash; if you have to turn the lights down and squint a bit to get your interpretation in, then it's the wrong interpretation.  c) Discussions on the talk pages of AfD or CSD (or both) where this subject has come up a few times.  "or groups" does not cover corporations.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, and I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks. Seems a bit odd though that speedy covers bands and clubs  but not companies... but I'm still relatively new at all this and if that's what the consensus was, that's what the consensus was :) But in this case, we're in AfD-land. Do you have an opinion on whether this article should be deleted?
 * Actually, while I've got an administrator's attention, I want to make sure I've got the rules understood correctly. A can be removed by the article creator (or indeed anybody) for no other reason than disagreement with the proposed deletion, but a speedy tag should not be removed by anybody but an administrator and should only be objected to with  or on the article's talk page... is that correct? Also, yes, I'm happy to take your word on the suitability (or lack thereof) of non-notable companies for speedy deletion, but what exactly is the point of Template:Db-reason? VoiceOfReason 11:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Back to margin <

CSD is supposed to define a list of reasons for deletion so obvious that we can trust just one person to make the decision all on his sweeney; as a result, people tend to want to extend the list as little as possible. Bands (meant to cover high school garage bands who formed last week and haven't agreed on a name, sort of thing), clubs (e.g. the football team you and your mates organised for a muckaround after work), and so on were difficult enough to push through, without trying for corporations as well. As for prod, yes, it can be removed by anyone at any time for any reason (or, indeed, no acknowedlged reason). Speedy tags can be removed by anyone, but should not be removed by the article's author; hangon exists for the article's author to contest the speedy deletion if he wants, but need not be used by anyone else. Administrators have no special status when it comes to removing speedy tags. db-reason exists mostly so that people don't have to remember all the other template names, and partly for when you have a reason for deletion that doesn't match existing templates perfectly (e.g. you want to note that it meets more than one of the CSD, or you've got a good reason that doesn't have a template yet &mdash; like Jimbo's statements on articles that run afoul of WP:BLP). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the tips... I want to be the best editor I can be, and I really appreciate getting good guidance. (I also owe you for demonstrating templatename ... substantially less cumbersome than   !) I understand the hesitancy to expand CSD, but per below I've dumped my opinion on the appropriate talk page and this page has already gotten pretty far derailed from its purpose, so I'll shut up now. Thanks again. VoiceOfReason 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regrettably A7 doesn't seem to cover small companies. It really should! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If anybody cares (which would surprise the heck out of me) I've opined on this subject on the CSD new criteria talk page. VoiceOfReason 11:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete... 23 clients? This isn't a "small" company, it's microscopic. And the author's comments just aren't helpful either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete per above and per note on my talk page stating in part "I want to share the history of my company with whomever may hear about my company and want to lean about it." - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, no sources cited, and ventures into crystalballism. --DarkAudit 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- way too small. Although I did appreciate the clarification of speedy delete, proposed delete, and AfD. --Natalie 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Let's make this article the redlink it was meant to be! (Sorry, it had to be said) :-p Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, owner's comment above is arrogant and obnoxious. NawlinWiki 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Don't bite the newbies. I think "arrogant and obnoxious" is a bit harsh; the owner is new here, manifestly unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works (and what Wikipedia is not), and probably fairly young. He's clearly very proud of his company and doesn't (or didn't) understand why it's not appropriate for an article. Our job is to help him understand. Yes, this article obviously deserves the axe, but User:Bafendo might become a valued contributor here if we don't run him off. VoiceOfReason 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - Okay, I take it back. Go ahead and bite the newbie. VoiceOfReason 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone in the Wiki community like Bafendo? Sure I said small but that doesn't mean my company isn't important. We're big to our clients and we've had a few problems that have kept us small but we are finally growing. What we need right now is friends not enemys. Enemies make Bafendo look bad and a few of our clients have seen these "delete" comments and are now thinking of dropping Bafendo. Enemies we don't need! We need friends and allies. You don't want to kill Bafendo do you? Oh and by big I went giant like Microsoft ok Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)! And I may be new to Wikipedia but I do know what I am talking about! And you'll see how big Bafendo is when Western Digital markets LiquaDrive in a few years... just you wait! And just for the record; I will always fight for my company and I will never let anyone say it is not worthy and that I and/or Bafendo is arrogant and obnoxious! We are loved by many and we will never go away! --Bafendo 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Look, you. It has nothing to do with not "liking" Bafendo. You've already been pointed here, but here it is again: read WP:CORP. Does Bafendo meet these guidelines? Well, let's have a look. Been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial media articles? Nope. Listed on a well-known and independent ranking of important companies? Nope. Stock a component of a market index? Heck nope, I'd lay very long odds you don't even have publically-traded stock. These are the guidelines. These are the criteria. They are objective. If a company meets any one of them, it is considered notable by Wikipedia standards and merits an article. If a company meets none of them, it is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards and merits deletion. That's it. If your company does in fact meet any of these criteria, please cite your sources and the article will undoubtedly be kept. If not, quit whining about it. VoiceOfReason 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you want to play that way do you? Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! I think i'll tell everyone I know to stop using Wikipedia. Sure it wont make a big impact at first but when word spreads especially through the media the wheels start turning on something big. You've made a very big mistake one you will regret! To hell with Wikipedia if all of you feel this way. I hope you don't destroy another company! Besides there's lots of alternatives to Wikipedia. One is webster. This is not the end Wikipedia! This is not the end at all! You've made a powerfull enemy and a big mistake! We don't have to take anyones crap not even precious Wikipedia! We will be back and you'll see just how "notable" we are! You've made our list! And it's not a good list! You've been warned! --Bafendo 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Curse you, Captain Proton, curse you and all your heroic space-rangers to hell! You may have foiled my destructo-ray, but this is not the end! Someday, I will rebuild my army of super-death-robots-with-the-strength-of-ten, and then I shall return, to seek... my revenge! Ahahah! Ahahaha!"
 * Seriously dude - get a grip. Your business is not going to be destroyed by this. I agree that the original nomination was a bit content-free, but we've all tried to give you the reasons behind the deletion. Someday, if (hopefully when) your company creates a great product that sweeps the globe, we'll have an article on it. Until then, sorry. You've seen WP:CORP, and those are the breaks. Ruaraidh-dobson 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing indicating that subject meets WP:CORP, and Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! sounds like a request to me. -- Kinu  t /c  14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep someone had to do it. This may be the most entertaining AFD up now.  Both this and the article are better than a lot of the stuff on WP:BAD.  -Sanbeg 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Sanbeg. Atleast somebody understands.--Bafendo 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the article, but keep the AfD per Sanbeg. VoiceOfReason 03:38, 2 August 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.