Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Davison Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company. Fails WP:Notability (companies). Has not been subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep How exaclty is Forbes not a "reliable, independent secondary source" ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Snowball" seems a little silly when you are the first person other than the nominator to comment. Lady  of  Shalott  19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What? The entire point of WP:Snowball is to avoid a bureaucratic process, so of course it's perfcetly sensible to cite it at the very beginning of that process. GDallimore (Talk) 20:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * snowball keep. Two reliable sources already cited: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette and a lengthy acticle in Forbes, reporting on a large FTC order. GDallimore (Talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has multiple reliable third-party sources. Definitely meets notability guidelines. ItsZippy (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you make the link between "Davison Design & Development" and "Davison Associates"? None of the two sources (Forbes and Pittsburgh-Post Gazette) mention "Davison Associates", which is, as far as I can see, the article's title. Is there a reliable source for that? I am confused. --Edcolins (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Alright, I can see the link now. It might be notable after all... Meanwhile, the FTC court case seems more notable than the company itself... --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep though I doubt the firm will like the results - I found  which does not make the firm sould like an article will provide much business for them.  Note the name change apparently to just "Davison" or "Davison Design and Development" and the court ordered notice at .  16 people made money out of over six hundred thoudand people contacting the firm.  Not a real impressive number.   Collect (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (user:pashute) But change back to Inventionland. There are several reasons Inventionland is notable, while Davison is less so.
 * Please see the talk page about the scam section. There is no problem to prove that they were sued for scamming and found guilty. And there is no problem to prove that they are continuing with the exact same program, as before they lost in court. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to my former remark: The FTC issued a specific statement about Davison making it notable, quoting a USPTO (the US patent office) official saying: Judge Lancaster’s decision sends a strong signal to all those invention promotion and licensing firms that prey upon America’s independent inventor community that fraudulent and unscrupulous practices will not be tolerated.
 * So Davison was chosen as one of the major scamming firms (Note the same FTC statement calls Davison's outfit: "typical of invention promotion scams".) IMHO this is enough to make Davison notable. Combined with the Forbes article, it should be kept.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 August 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.