Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversified industrial staffing


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Diversified industrial staffing
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This one seems to fall short of both notability and corporation guidelines. The article is referenced to a few lists and is briefly mentioned in passing in a few news articles, but this seems below the standard level of coverage expected of a notable company. Unless and until there arises some substantial sources, more than just a single sentance mention here and an entry on a list there, I don't think this meets notability standards. Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the usual notability guideline without difficulty just using the sources in the article. Wily D 13:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  StarM  01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it is sufficiently cited. Icewedge (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are specific guidelines for the notability of organizations and companies that require there to be significant coverage by secondary sources in order for a company to be considered notable. I don't think a very short mention in Inc. for being the 4,552nd fastest growing private US company in 2007 and one or two newspaper articles that quote the founder of the company add up to significant coverage. Teleomatic (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I was holding off on commenting on this, but since no new comments have been made recently, I am going to vote to delete. While there are numerous mentions, there do not seem to be any non-trivial mentions in relaible secondary sources.  This means the company fails the notability guidelines and should be deleted.  Theseeker4 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. The references given are to a list of growing businesses, and to a local newspaper.  The one is not in-depth coverage devoted to this specific business, and the other does not show more than local interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (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.