Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Maag


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dalton Maag

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable company, article remains unreferenced more than three years after being tagged, text is largely promotional claims and a list of products and clients, was deleted after expired PROD but restored at a user's request. Dravecky (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been significantly improved since this nomination was made but while there are now references, they are passing mentions of the company or an employee, not the on-point coverage from reliable third-party sources required to prove notability. I would be quite content for this article to survive if that basic proof that this is a notable company per WP:COMPANY is provided. - Dravecky (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. This is a business that makes computer typefaces.  The references supplied are either to directories of similar businesses ("MyFonts" website; An A-Z of type designers book reference), in-passing mentions ("Making [type]faces for publications or corporations has become the staple for companies such as Dalton Maag in London"), or attempts to create inherited notability (one of our typefaces was used by somebody famous).  I looked and did not find anything better.  I don't see any of this as meeting the general notability guideline, much less the business specific one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2010 (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.