Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammes 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   delete.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hammes Company

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company. Main contributor is User:Hammes, so conflict of interest is apparent as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COI promotional material. While COI is not grounds for deletion in itself, it is grounds for skepticism or rebuttable presumption. In this case, the principle claim for notability ("ranked by Modern Healthcare...") is not specifically supported by the citation. Searching this on-line magazine yields ten articles, none of which appears to be significant coverage or to substantiate the claim. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Needs more significant coverage to fulfill criteria for Notability (organizations and companies). Seems to be some sockpuppetry going on, or at least somebody with interest in the company repeatedly visiting the page. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, article remains as purely educational and does not contain marketing, advertising or sales information. Purely information, resources, references and notability found on internet and firm's website. To address Ningauble's argument above regarding Modern Healthcare ranking/notability - Ranking/Notability can be found on reference #6 on article - It can be edited according to match reference to ranking/notability if that would make Ningauble happy. Also, code and article seems to be  based on other architecture/design firm's Wiki articles, including RTKL and CH2 M Hill. If these articles are deemed noteable and accepted, then this article should be able to remain on Wiki. To address IceCreamAntisocial's sockpupperty claim, while the article does appear to be written from a company representative, it was written as an informative and educational tool. Since then, the article has been scrubbed and edited from other users, as well. Sharnden (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The alternate citation is a company profile at a trade association with which subject is affiliated. These are expressly not considered independent sources under the general notability guideline. To address the notability question, it would be much better to cite the article in which the magazine published its rankings and their rationale. (Fortunately for me, my happiness does not rest on the comings and goings of Wikipedia articles.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 5 September 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.