Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doba (company)


 * 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.  

Closure overturned to Delete by unanimous DRV. Xoloz 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Drop shipping. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 08:10Z

Doba (company)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally speedily deleted this article under criteria G11 (as it was tagged) and A7. The article's author objected so I have restored it and brought it here for wider consideration. cj | talk 10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure looks like an A7 to me, too. &mdash;Cryptic 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: A Google search makes it look to me like this may well be notable. Have a look at this, was an interesting read. Lots of Google hits, hard to know if any of them confer notability though. Seem to be some reviews around- this and this are two good examples. I would say that, in its current state, it is perhaps speediable, but, as a subject, probably isn't. Can't really tell if it should be kept- there are a lot of mentions, it is just not awfully easy to find any very reliable ones. J Milburn 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The company has a well know status through out several communities seen by doing a search at Google or Yahoo. A look at the Alexa rating does provide some incite (while limited) to the status of the company too. The CEO, Jeremy Hanks, has helped author a couple of books as well see the main one. A look at inventory.overture.com also shows the name Doba receives a substantial amount of search traffic. Another look at search results on Google and Yahoo shows that lots of other companies (including eBay) are paying to show up on for this search term. And as Milburn noted there have been some reviews and other news articles written reguarding the company. The answer isn't going to obvious I guess, but it does not seem to be clear enough to make a deletion decision. Ryskis 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to be a barn burner, here....however, online visibility doesn't necessarily assume notability. See entries at RipoffReport for substantial entries, and/or feedback posted  here.  Affiliate links and/or paid traffic isn't proof of notability, either.  This appears to be a G11 entry.  Rec'd AFD. --LeroyWilkins 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is neither a G11 or A7. Reading the content of the article makes it seem like a far stretch to say that this is blatant advertising. The content is more biographical and unbiased than any advertising speak. Hirank 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be biographical, but autobiographical, which would qualify for deletion. See reference to Conflict of Interest--LeroyWilkins 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Leroy, I disagree with you on this one. This doesn't seem "autobiographical" to me. And in any case Leroy, autobiographical isn't a valid reason for deletion, even if it was. You can reference the criteria for deletion page: Criteria for DeletionHirank 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: See the following entries within Conflict of Interest: 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. This article violates numerous conditions for entry (as previously mentioned), at least three so far. --LeroyWilkins 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:CORP. - Aagtbdfoua 00:29, 8 April 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.