Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems (second nomination)


 * 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. TigerShark 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Boring Business Systems
Previous AfD (Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems) close dno consensus, but all five "keep" voters were later found to be probable sockpuppets of a single editor (now indef-blocked), no editor in good standing with a real edit history voted keep, and several advocated deletion. This article seems to exist solely to allow a small group of people to poke fun at the domain name (the company was founded by a Mr. Boring, incidentally, in case you were wondering). Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear notable enough, only real interest is name. michael <span
 * Delete. appears to be an elaborate hoax. BBS website lists phone numbers which are the same as the Royal Typewriter Company, at an oddly similar address as BBS.  Most links don't work.  Tychocat 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's a hoax, it's a pretty damn elaborate one: the company is listed as a member of the local chamber of commerce, for example. Not voting, since as a non-logged-in user my vote would doubtless simply be ignored, but I don't see any particular reason to delete this while Wikipedia still has craptacular cruft like List of songs with numbers in the title. 81.178.65.121 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Arguments of the "Look, there's other crap on Wikipedia" variety usually don't go very far either. ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough to pass WP:CORP Kevin 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing has changed since my last vote, and my initial nomination for AfD for this article. WP:CORP is very clear, and this does not meet those notability criteria at all. --Wisd e n17 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Still not notable. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn & fails WP:CORP. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:CORP. Max S em 06:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable because of its name and the publicity that its name has attracted. It is also a long-established company, founded in 1924. TruthbringerToronto 14:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But that fails to address WP:CORP which sets out very clearly notability criteria for companines. This company meets none of them, hence by the accepted definition on Wikipedia it is non-notable. --Wisd e n17 14:45, 18 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.