Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookit (company)


 * 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 Move to draftspace. The article has been/will be moved to Draft:Bookit (company) (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bookit (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company of questionable notability. PRODed it but PROD was removed. Note that their main product ("2-way iSMS") was recently deleted as non-notable (Articles_for_deletion/2-way_iSMS), which argues the company is non-notable too. Furthermore, I strongly suspect WP:COI editing. SJK (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article went through AfC three times and I note that the interested editor was notified about the PROD, but has not been notified of the AfD. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk
 * I have notified them now. I don't see how many times it went through AfC is relevant to the criteria of whether we keep or delete it - which is whether it is notable. AfC reviewers will sometimes create articles for non-notable things, due to differing individual interpretations/applications of the notability standards. SJK (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Return to draftspace as if I had reviewed this, I would not have accepted it like as the article simply needed any more available in-depth third-party sources and my own searches now only found a few links at Books, News and browsers....certainly nothing for a better article yet.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral I tend not to !vote on drafts I have accepted. The article was always borderline for acceptance. Sometimes main namespace works for a borderline article, sometimes not. All it has to be is capable of being referenced to remain here. The argument that it "simply needs more references" (presumably for it to remain in main namespace) has to fail on that basis. But, if it is returned to Draft: that has to be acceptable, too. Fiddle   Faddle  09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Return to draft space Premature acceptance. The refs need to be pruned to those with substnatial cotnent, and then we cna properly judge the notability .  DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 1 December 2015 (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.