Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Ink-Jet


 * 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   no consensus. Opinions about whether the sources suffice for notability are divided.  Sandstein  17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Island Ink-Jet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - The WSJ article is arguably nontrivial as it mentions this company several times as part of background and testing of their product, but the Boston.com barely mentions this company even in passing. So even if we give the WSJ the green light we'd still need some others. Did a quick search in the obvious locations and couldn't find any others. It's odd that something with so many outlets has so little news coverage anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Please note that I write this as an ink and toner cartridge industry expert and as a member of the company so there is no ambiguity.

Regarding news coverage. Bear in mind that printer manufactures do not like the refill industry - it means less profit to them. The ink cartridge refill industry as a whole (including IIJ) has received very little news coverage which makes sense if you check the manufacturers financial statements and realize their most profitable divisions involve print consumables. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising with media outlets. The old saying "never bite the hand that feeds" comes to mind.

I respectfully submit that it is possible to achieve notoriety by the general community without the traditional "press coverage". Island Ink-Jet has refilled over 10 million cartridges to date which is impressive given we merely provide a service. It is ultimately the consumer that has chosen to refill and done so by bringing their cartridges to any of our locations (We wonder what would have happened if there had been substantial press coverage).

That said, there has been several nontrivial articles dealing with Island Ink-Jet however many are not preserved on the internet. In addition to the WSJ article cited, WSJ featured IIJ on the front page of the Business section on August 3rd, 2004. Island Ink-Jet was also featured on CTV's 6 o'clock evening news in 2005 (Pat Foran's consumer report segment) which discussed the refilling of ink cartridges and was shown nationwide within Canada. There have been several newspaper articles over the years but most are found in actual print rather than being searchable online. Island Ink-Jet has also been the recipient of numerous awards from chamber of commerce awards to consumers choice awards (Barrie Chamber of Commerce Green Award, Edmonton Consumers Choice award for #1 cartridge refiller, Canadian Office Products Association -COPA- award of excellence to name a few)- again none of which you would find by searching the internet as they are material things that are verifiable to anyone who contacts us and asks. Anyone interested in validating is welcome to contact Island Ink-Jet and request copies of articles that have appeared in print.

I am apalled by "Ohnoitsjamie"'s actions in nominating the Island Ink-Jet page for deletion. This is ultimately his retaliation in response to an update I placed on the "Ink Cartridge" page which he undid without any cause. I believe this is an abuse of power. As an expert within the industry I want to ensure the information is accurate and up to date. I removed a reference from an older PC World article an replaced it with a newer one. I also added information relating to how cartridges can be refilled. I was cognoscente that being an expert within the industry and being a member of IIJ could create a COI so I ensured the update was unbiased and neutral and it was certainly not promotional nor did it contain any external links. Wikipedia rules say use common sense and common sense would suggest that someone with a background in having refilled 10 million cartridges is probably an expert in the field - (even moreso than a PC world article writer who has never once refilled an ink cartridge). It's a shame when Wikipedia displays poor information as a result of a power tripping administrator like ohnoitsjamie.

We ask that common sense is used by other editors when reviewing this delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.112.26.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Note that this is one of serveral WP:SPA accounts spamming ink-cartridge related pages over the last year or so; see also this blocked user and these IP edits from the same geographical area. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment We dispute the comment by Ohnoitsjamie. As an expert in the field and while I know there was the potential for COI, I updated information on certain pages which accurately reflects the topic in a neutral fashion, that is not promotional and contained no spam.  Ohitsnotjamie has simply used his power to delete subject matter, block my account, claim I am spamming etc based on his limited knowledge of the subject matter and his assumption that anything we write is spam regardless of the content because "most people who update the Ink Cartridge entry are spammers".

Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith. Wikipedia's guidelines go so far as to state "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." In stark contrast to these stated goals Ohitsnotjamie simply uses his power to delete content without expertise on the subject matter, without cause, without reviewing the content and based on an assumption that writers on the subject matter are spammers and should they protest, he blocks their account. I think common sense would suggest this is going overboard. Common sense would also suggest that Ohitsnotjamie has nominated this article for deletion as a pesonal vendetta against "this account" (as he portrays this account as that of a spammer) when in fact the reality is that it is he who blocked the account in the first place and as a direct consequence to our disagreeing with his removal of content without any just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The WSJ source mentions IIJ several times but we really need at least one source that covers IIJ directly and in significant detail. The WSJ source does neither of these things. If the IP above can supply the 2004 WSJ article he/she mentions where IIJ was featured on the front page of the Business section, that sounds like a start and might change my vote. Failing that, and per WP:BURDEN, for now this is a delete. I'd also caution the IP from similar massive outpourings of text in this discussion, as they are almost inevitably counterproductive (a common response: "if you need that many words to explain why it's notable, it's probably not notable"). This is to say nothing of the manner in which you devote so much time to saying how "appalled" you are at the existence of this AFD and the "power-tripping" of OhNoItsJamie, which is also very counterproductive and, in addition, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being relatively new to wikipedia didn't know the best place to take up recurring issues. My apologies.  Regarding articles, see note below.207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand why the IP is upset; an AfD nomination that is lazy deserves to be riduculed sometimes. This nomination statement is useless to me "Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject."  The current state of an article often has very little relation to its notability.  I could go around nominating thousands of articles for deletion under that rationale, even when I knew the subject was clearly notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Come come now, this is such a standard rationale that it borders on being boilerplate. The argument presented is that the article is not notable, based on asserting that the sources supplied do not establish notability. While I'd never argue against going the extra mile in drafting a detailed nomination statement, simply doing the standard spiel can't possibly be grounds for ridicule and outrage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This wasn't standard spiel. This was punishment for my other edits which were factually correct and which were deleted by the same individual. The most recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=499154861&oldid=498938678 All reliable articles dealing with the subject matter discuss the same companies in almost every news article available on the subject yet any attempt to add relevant information to wikipedia is met by a lazy delete because he considers something "rinky-dink" (as quoted below)207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IT should be grounds for ridicule and outrage. It is lazy and pathetic and virtually spitting in the face of editors who work to write articles. If people looked at it that way, they would think harder before making such nominations.  This nomination is ridiculous, this chain had hundreds of retail units throughout north america at its peak and much written about it.  Shame, shame, shame.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not shamed and stand by the nom. It's a rinky-dink franchise that was written as an advertisement by an employee. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lyra Research considers the article's topic be one of four companies that (when combined) accounted for 62% of retail cartridge-refilling locations in North America in 2006... The deletion of content is akin to implying the industry doesn't exist. Give me a break! This is beyond ridicule.207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, if you combine this company with three other companies you get to 62% of the market? So what's this company's share of the market? By that math it could be 1%. It could be 0.1%, for that matter. What's the actual number? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well according to Lyra Research there were 1103 total stores offering refill services in North America in 2005. According to Specialty Retail Report, Island Ink-Jet had 208 stores as of April 2005. So roughly 20% of the marketplace give or take.174.112.26.83 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A business is notable if its accomplishments get coverage, plus what those accomplishments are. The Wall Street Journal states Island Ink-Jet has opened 75 stores and this was in an article from 2005.  I don't see on their official website how many stores they now have.  Clearly a notable business.   D r e a m Focus  04:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A business is notable if it is the "subject of significant coverage" in reliable sources, not "if its accomplishments get coverage." I am quoting WP:NCOMPANY. I'm not sure what you're quoting :). The relevant question is whether the coverage supplied of IIJ is "significant." There is definitely coverage, and it's definitely in reliable sources. I question its significance. This is, unfortunately, a wholly subjective area. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Examples:, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 21:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those sources, except for the Comox Valley Echo (and I'll get to that in a moment), address the subject "directly." That's literally all I'm missing. All of the sourcing supplied is about the ink cartridge refill industry, and IIJ is mentioned (repeatedly -- that is, to be clear, I'm not intending to suggest that IIJ is mentioned in a list and then forgotten about) in the context of the industry. I have yet to see an article in a reliable source that is about the subject. ...except for the Comox Valley Echo piece, which confuses me. It's about an Island Inkjet that went out of business in 2009. It mentions another competing company called Island Ink-Jet and Toner. The subject of this article is still in business. As such, I have to conclude that the subject of the Comox Valley Echo piece is either an entirely separate company with the same name, or was some kind of distribution or manufacturing subsidiary of IIJ that shuttered. In either case, I don't see it as covering the subject of the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh! Okay, forget what I just wrote about the Comox Valley Echo piece. Parent company rescued from oblivion in 2009, apparently. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Comox Valley Echo piece does actually refer to a separate company however the subject of this article is the brand, not the company. The brand was owned by a company that not only ended up closing, but was also sued which resulted in courts awarding the brand to another owner hence two companies owing the brand at different times (note tonernews article from company's site). 174.112.26.83 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the Echo cite. Yes, its the same brand/company.  As is typical with these things, big money men come in when they see an opportunity and the founders end up elsewhere eventually.  As a Canadian company, I am sure there are more articles not readily found because Canadian newspapers don't give away archived content for free.  I added the Echo and one other cite after a 2 minute search.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that a selection of articles are found here: https:// www. islandinkjet .com/inthepress/  (You will have to put it together.  It appears the admin also went so far as to block the site!)207.112.18.250 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Has several links but they seem to be limited mentions, announcements and mostly trivial coverage. Even the WSJ mention is one among similar organizations. Either way they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" for Equipment leasing company ltd.--Hu12 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment does not equate to the facts. There are references currently in the article wholly about the company, some in depth ones among them. Much smaller chains have been kept on far less coverage before, I can't think of any chain with hundreds of stores not proved to be notable in the past at AfD.Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family MarketsArticles for deletion/Chiquito (restaurant).--Milowent • hasspoken  04:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP does not include any provisions suggesting that "being a franchised business" equates to notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 10:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not, I'm talking about what overwhelmingly happens in practice. These articles are many, e.g., Cartridge World, and even rarely get nominated. This chain had 240 locations as of 2006, which is fairly large.  I guess nobody wants to look for articles about the chain, but its not like they don't exist. They are myriad.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: OK, I'm tired of this crap.  I fired up my highbeam account and added a number of additional references.  Notability is not in question.  AfD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in question, hence the lack of WP:SNOWBALL here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, lots of Americans still question whether Obama was born in the United States.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 16:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Merely adding in mass, a indiscriminate amount of search result links, does not establish this subject as notable for inclusion. I've gone through them and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.
 * -action-intell.com/2011/03/03/retail-cartridge-refiller-island-ink-jet-opens-e-commerce-website/
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops - fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * -tonernews.com/message.aspx?vy=bb&id=22170
 * Anonymous "Forum Message" PR post with sales and contact info - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125926333.html
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11943643.html
 * About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157897207.html
 * About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
 * -articles.boston.com/2006-09-11/business/29242757_1_ink-cartridges-replacement-cartridges-cartridge-world
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111871321693558814-pE_pv5NrwRCx9T6hLKOonuGDgNc_20060613,00.html?mod=blogs
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1G1-124345725.html
 * About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited - Fails WP:GNG
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129013774.html
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111270185.html
 * no mention, behind a paywall looks to be a press kit - Fails WP:GNG
 * -specialtyretail.com/issue/2005/04/retailer-profiles/ink_refill_retail_franchise/
 * self-publicity, advertising, press kit interview, its not Independent of the subject.
 * -.canada.com/comoxvalleyecho/news/community/story.html?id=294a3e0a-f0a3-41b9-bd0e-3fce9901ef15
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Clearly Island Ink-Jet Fails Notability. --Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * utter bullshit. you guys are idiots, i'm done with this discussion.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Civility and No personal attacks. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I added another 10 or so sources and references including 2 new WSJ articles, research from Lyra Research, various newspaper articles that are non trivial, letters from government sources, commendations from city's. Note that some articles are retrieved from the archives on islandinkjet.com which has been blocked by wiki (and therefore the url cannot be added properly to reference materials)on the Island Ink-Jet page.  I wasn't sure how to add these articles which are relevant to this discussion so I removed the https://www. from the url.  Would appreciate it if an admin can update this properly as I don't know the process..174.112.26.83 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fails Notability;
 * -seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002902393_keepyourmoney02.html
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/newwaytothinkofink.pdf
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -sptimes.com/2004/10/11/news_pf/Technology/Cost_of_ink_cartridge.shtml
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/fillitupwithcolorwallstreetjournal.jpg
 * Is merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops. Its also a duplicate of the WSJ already used - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html?page=all
 * About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG
 * -ecotrust.ca/energy/refill-not-landfill-a-winning-slogan-island-ink-jet
 * Anonymous PR SEO blog post with hyperlink - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG
 * -islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/EnvironmentAward2006Nomination.pdf
 * Not Independent of the subject; Chamber of Commerce Member Services start at $483 for class "A" all the way up to "k" which is $6783, this is paid marketing
 * -islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/greenawardfrombarriechamberofcommerce.pdf
 * Not Independent of the subject; Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Member Services include Marketing
 * -.islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/letterfrombarriempregreenaward.pdf
 * Not Independent of the subject; Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Member Services include Marketing
 * -islandinkjet.com/images/inthepress/congradulationson50thstorefromministeroftheenvironment.pdf
 * Seems to be a standard correspondence letter that goes out after registering substance(s) ie.(ink) with the Minister of the Environment (required). Trivial as corporate papers
 * I've gone through them and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've examined three of the sources analyzed in the previous post, and in none of the three cases could I confirm the results. The selection was not random, I selected three links that looked interesting.  sptimes.com/2004/10/11/news_pf/Technology/Cost_of_ink_cartridge.shtml is a dead link.  I also looked at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/makeitcount/2002902393_keepyourmoney02.html, where the entire article is about the concept being marketed by "Island Ink-Jet", and the attention of readers is directed to three companies, one of which is "Island Ink-Jet".  IMO, the representation that this is "trivial coverage" is not guideline based.  A third sample was http://bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html?page=all, which provides direct in-depth prose that goes to WP:GNG notability.  The analysis was, "About a franchise owner, does not establish notability, nor is notability inherited.- Fails WP:GNG".  The first part is correct, there is discussion about a franchise owner.  The subsequent analysis fails to report that attention in the article is also given directly to the topic and that the attention given to the franchisee is also going, at least in part, to the topic.  This error by omission suggests that the analysis is not reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. In the nwsource.com link above the only mention of Island Ink-Jet is as follows;
 * " ...chains of refill shops have a total of 14 stores in the Puget Sound area: Cartridge World (www.cartridgeworldusa.com), Island Ink-Jet (www.islandinkjet.com) and Rapid Refill Ink (www.rapidrefillink.com). "
 * Fails the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP which reads; "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations", Which is entirely guideline based. the bizjournals.com link is about a frachise Mark Tremont, and there are only two mentions
 * "Island Ink Jet isn't the only company in the region to offer the recycling service. Another franchise, Cartridge World"
 * "resellers such as Island Ink Jet and Cartridge World"
 * Neither of these establish notability and is trivial and incidental coverage.- Fails the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP and WP:GNG--Hu12 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There is consensus in this discussion that the nomination was inadequate.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsupported statements such as "Obviously passes" are Not a valid arguments for inclusion, particularly when here is clear evidence to the contrary--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the previous poster aware that there are a number of sources listed on this page? I can relist them if needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well aware, however they also fail the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP--Hu12 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But we are not talking about WP:CORP. Is the object here to understand the support for my !vote, or is this an exercise in denial?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we are talking about the specific inclusion guidelines of Notability (organizations and companies). Is the previous poster aware that Island Ink-Jet is not a musical group? --Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that music groups have any relevance to this discussion. Is this a red herring argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What we are discussing is my !vote which is about "WP:GNG", which is the general notability guideline. An assertion that my !vote was about WP:ORG rather than WP:GNG becomes evidence of a  logical non-sequitur fallacy.  As per Unscintillating (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No assertion made, I addressed your !vote in my first comment above. To clarify, the sources fail WP:GNG's "Significant coverage", put forth in the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP. --Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "No assertion made"? "[W]e are talking about the specific inclusion guidelines of Notability (organizations and companies)", was that not an assertion in the context of my !vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no context of your !vote. "Obviously passes" is not a valid argument for inclusion. Obviously What? The sources fail WP:GNG's "Significant coverage", put forth in the "Primary criteria" (WPCORPDEPTH) of WP:CORP. How is that passing WP:GNG?--Hu12 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2012 (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.