Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Juice, Inc.


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital Juice, Inc.

 * — (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, advertising, NPOV issues. MidgleyDJ 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw AfD This article was created in literally less than 5 hours ago.  Unless it's offensive or slanderous, an "instant AfD" without even being prodded is incorrect form.  --Oakshade 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something I'm missing here? I don't see anything problematic about this AfD or anywhere that it says it's bad form to take an article directly to AfD. Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the "Before nominating an AfD" section of WP:AFD. None of the guildlines were followed here. --Oakshade 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: After the speedy deletion was removed (the previous versions of this article were blatant advertising) I brought this article to AfD - In my opinion due course was followed. The article wasnt prod'ed - but there was no need for me to do that. MidgleyDJ 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFD, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." As this doesn't at all look like a "hopless case", you completely ignored this particular guideline and nominated it for AfD in under 4 hours of the article's creation.  --Oakshade 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per actually reading WP:AFD: ...please consider that... & ...case, consider sharing... I did not completely ignore it at all, I considered. This is not the place for this discussion, feel free to continue to discuss this on my talk page. Cheers MidgleyDJ 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't see any reason this company is sufficently notable for an article. One outside source is not enough, in my opinion. Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Lookin' a lot better now; I think I can support keeping it. Heimstern Läufer 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, and Oakshade, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about this AfD. What are you trying to claim?  Nowhere does an article have to go through PROD before coming to AfD.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Abstain (until article is improved)  - article includes one Macworld reference which is certainly a reliable source, and a quick google search turns of a large number of other possibilities. The other delete votes don't appear to have a reason stated for deletion, other than a vague opinion that they "don't see that it is notable." Tarinth 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Expanded my reason. Heimstern Läufer 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the arguments are that the article has not established notability. There is a difference.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can see that it doesn't establish notability aside from having been noticed by Macworld on one occassion. Definitely should not be speedied though, to give the article's creator an opportunity to address this.  I suspect that with a company that's been around for a few years with 700K Ghits there's a good chance notability can be established. Tarinth 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article now appears to have been improved and the reliable sources provided appear to support notability. Tarinth 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't being speedied. This discussion will last at least five days.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, it was being speedied (after this AfD strted, then I constested it) and that's what previous comments are referring to. --Oakshade 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy G11. Blatant advertising.  Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear to be blatant advertising; appears to contain only statements of fact without any puffery or pitchmanship. Tarinth 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Vote User:Djuice1 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Vote changed per Djuice1's added references that establish notability (and it's obvious this AfD won't be withdrawn). The article now could use expanding to "verify" the sources!  This is what's forced to happen when an article goes to AfD so quickly.  --Oakshade 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Digital Juice is very notable in the video industy. David Slater 03:55, 5 January 2007 (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.