Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Em-Amen


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Em-Amen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable ISP, fails WP:CORP. If it really is a sub of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, then delete and redirect. ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - If a reliable source proving it is a sub of PLDT can be found then it should be merged with that. If not it should be deleted as non-notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 16:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I had previously put a Prod on this: "Unreferenced article abuot a company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Claims of a relationship to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company are unverified and both the website and picture of the company van  are indicative of a small non-notable firm." The Prod was removed by the article creator. I can find no reference to Em-Amen on the PLDT website; a redirect would be inappropriate without evidence. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, only because I can't find any sources. If sources are provided I will not hesitate to change my vote.
 * Keep as sources have been added. I'm currently in the process of getting out of him what this 'not for public' website is all about.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced now and it doesn't seem like it will be in the future. Basic searches turn up nothing.
 * Delete - the source that was added, Philippinecompanies.com, is user-editable and thus not a reliable source. Not enough coverage in other sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage of the subject of the AfD found in non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject is not notable as defined in WP:GNG. Furthermore, as it failed GNG there is no way it can meet WP:CORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: doing my own research for this yields this, which proves that it exists and is a registered contractor with that country's government.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite that, it is not a claim to notability. I could set up a company, win a bid for a government project, but my company would still not be notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article here shows that it is a registered contractor of PDLT and not a part of it. I recommend redirect and merging with the PLDT article.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Credit to User:Launchballer for the research to identify some factual basis. As to the merge & redirect suggestion, a lot hinges on the status of being a registered contractor to a firm. Especially in a world of outsourcing, corporations have contractors, for example for local site maintenance: the corporation is important to the contractor, but not vice versa. In this case, merging material about Em-Amen onto the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company page would seem WP:UNDUE, if it is a separate firm not even mentioned on PLDT's website. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 17 March 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.