Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branders.com


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 13:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Branders.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not provide reliable, independent sources to show that the subject company meets the notability standards of WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hi NawlinWiki, It does provide independent sources from the organizations the company is a member of, PPAI, ASI Central etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palconit (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the sources are derived from organizations of which the subject is a member, then the sources would not be considered independent of the subject.  Cind. amuse  06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Don't really get it, but it seems notable in its field and its awards won do not seem insignificant. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Seeming notable", really doesn't cut it. Notability criteria for corporations requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Awards won do not signify or solidify notability.  Cind. amuse  06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Notability criteria for corporations requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, the sources used do not meet the definition of reliable or independent.  Cind. amuse  06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm finding some gnews hits that appear to be significant coverage including this and this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2011 (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.