Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exclusive Analysis


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 12:28Z 

Exclusive Analysis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreated speedy. Article asserts notability but is very spammy. Seeing what the wider community thinks. -- Steel 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it is spam, but let's set precedent here. None of the sources provided satisfy WP:V. --N Shar 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs to be rewritten as it now reads like an ad but their work is published by enough notable third parties to warrant an article. NeoFreak 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply having their work published isn't enough. We need someone (multiple people, actually) to have published stuff on them (i.e. multiple external sources). -- Steel 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete although I might reconsider if the article is completely rewritten. Right now it's spam, and I'm not convinced there's anything notable about the company. Steel359 is right. Even if some of the employees are notable, that doesn't automatically mean the company is. Have they done anything innovative or original? Are they unique in some way? Right now, I don't see how they're any more important than you're average consulting firm. --Djrobgordon 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP.  I looked for third party sources to explain the significance of the company, and I didn't find any good ones. YechielMan 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:V, not a really significant company, likely WP:SPAM. Wooyi 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per N, V, and CORP. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:CORP, totalyl irrelevant. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:10, 15 February 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.