Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drawbridge (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.

The result was   keep. Courcelles 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Drawbridge (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run of the mill company that is of no encylopedic value. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems subjective to assert that something is "run of the mill" and further claim that it has no encyclopedic value. What of "run of the mill" locales like "Moisy, FRA" or "run of the mill" people like "Aleksandr Sautin" or "run of the mill" companies like "ECAPS". What specific characteristics does something require to be eligible for the elevated status of "having encyclopedic value"? Brianjoseff (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is subjective because we don't have prescriptive notability guideline for companies. I listed it because it is in that large grey area between being very notable and completely non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Accepted from AfC because Drawbridge is extensively covered in several reputable national news sources, for example Forbes and the BBC. The only confusion was whether the article was about the company or their 'platform'. I would say the subject meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The reason given for the AfD nomination seems at the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For notability, I think we can use WP:GNG as a guide. In this case, the Forbes, MIT Technology Review, BBC, and TelecomTV references already in the article are all secondary, in-depth, independent and from reliable sources. Reference 5, as a blog from the Guardian, may or may not be reliable, but it's also secondary, in-depth, and independent from a reliable news organization. With multiple secondary sources already extant in the article, the topic of the article is notable and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:GNG should be used for companies because there are some guidelines at WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH and it is very easy to find references for a company. Companies advertise and make themselves otherwise known. If we were to use WP:GNG for companies Wikipedia would rapidly turn into a business directory rather than be an encyclopaedia. We are in need of a decent notability guideline for companies so we can get some certainty in these AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Even WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, with the substantial national news sources, isn't it? Believe me, I hate spammy adverts as much as the next person, but the company seems to have caught the media's attention. I'm not sure what the problem is you're seeing. Sionk (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Companies may advertise and make themselves otherwise known, but such information is hardly unbiased. Company pages on Wikipedia provide a valuable service to people interested in a for-profit entity who aren't interested in trawling through marketing material and company copy-write.Brianjoseff (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that argument won't win you many allies here! Wikipedia isn't a free directory or extension for a business's website. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument was in reference to Alan Liefting's point that "Companies advertise and make themselves otherwise known. If we were to use WP:GNG for companies Wikipedia would rapidly turn into a business directory" and my point was that, if the only information available on companies is information they themselves produce, that is problematic in a "victors write the history" sense. Pages on Wikipedia are unbiased encyclopedic records and therefore valuable to those who may be interested in a company's history, or actions, but don't want to hear it from the company. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think you may have misunderstood my point. If you need me to clarify further please ask.Brianjoseff (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with coverage by BBC, Forbes and The Guardian. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Northamerica's argument is rock solid in policy whereas the deletion points are not based in them or lack the explanation on which direct grounds the article lacks. Mkdw talk 07:27, 18 January 2013 (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.