Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incka


 * Delete - advert for two-month old company - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * After VfD tag references were added to claim that it is famous. It includes references to using Wikipedia content but does not follow GFDL and reference Wikipedia on those pages. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed that problem. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
 * Keep - as the company is not selling any products and the article is fully informative then I see no reason to delete it, deleting the article because it is a two month old company is not professional, as the company is similar to other companies that have articles here such as JALIC 17:57, 25 Jun 2004 (GMT)
 * Above user is the anon creator of this article. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;
 * That is correct. I do feel that if companies of similar size such as Jalic can have an article about them that my company is intitled to one too. My company can not get any business from wikipedia, and I was only trying to expand it's base on knowledge by including an article about my company. I agree with your policy of deleting articles about un-famous people, but I feel all companies deserve a listing as long as it is not invented as an advert for their products or services. (Comment by User:81.152.33.255)
 * spam ad. delete Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The purpose is not to advertise but to inform. Alot of people search encyclopedia's such as this one for companies to get non-biased information on them. The article was not promotional and just explained what the company did and what companies it had links to.
 * When someone puts their own site up as an article it is generally referred to as a vanity posting or an advert. Since the site is two months old both concepts are supported. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If it is policy to delete articles that are promoting small companies in the website publishing business may I suggest you delete the article on Jalic LLC and Wikipedia's founder's company which is called Bomis.
 * You just cited Bomis' claim to fame. And Jalic is five years old, not two months.  I have no objection to listing Jalic on VfD.  I haven't looked at it yet. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Bomis is seperate from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a seperate foundation. The only link is with the founder both.
 * Delete. Newborn companies that try to promote themselves through an encyclopedia, for crying out loud, are spamming, pure and simple.  Who would come here looking for "Incka," anyway? - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe we should list JALIC on VfD, too? --Gary D 17:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. New company founded by a 14-year old?  Please.  RickK 19:06, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am 14 an I founded the company. Don't belive me? Go to www.companies-house.gov.uk and look at the records (director information part). I do not like people prejudice against my company for it's young age either. Jalic hasn't been a company for 5 years, but it has been in business for that long. My company was in operation for several years before it became a company.
 * Well you are too young to be legally a director of it. Secretlondon 22:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, we believe you. But to get an encyclopedia entry here you have to be a pretty major company. I know plenty with hundreds of employees and twenty-year track records that don't get an encyclopedia entry. Also there is a rule about not publicising yourself (or your own companies) here. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Small companies that make small websites are a dime a dozen. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with JALIC. anthony (see warning)
 * Delete, orphan page, not nearly notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. &mdash;Stormie 03:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think companies with "hundreds of employees and twenty-year track records" would qualify for articles, but Incka is still too insubstantial to be notable. JamesMLane 06:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)