Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobsen Corporate Services


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacobsen Corporate Services

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company. I have not been able to uncover any reliable sources about this topic. In fact, I believe that the company does not assert notability and fails A7. The speedy was declined by with the edit summary, "Speedy declined. Take to AfD if you feel the company is not notable, but I'm cautious about deleting companies under A7." Cunard (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability and importance are two different things.  An article need not assert notability in order to avoid being speedily deleted (And for cases where an article is covered only by the general notability guideline it is impossible for claims in the article to assert notability, because notability is established by the presence of detailed sourcing on the subject).  I'm not trying to read you the riot act, this is a common confusion for both editors and administrators (and it isn't helped by the fact that the language of A7 has changed over the years).  I have no comment on the merits of the deletion nomination itself, just figured I would establish why I declined the speedy. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I fail to see how Jacobsen Corporate Services asserts importance or indicates notability. The article does not list any sources for examination, and I could not find any. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Asserting importance and proving it are two totally different things. I could create an article on a made-up flavor of ice cream and claim that it's the most popular ice cream flavor on the eastern hemisphere and has been mentioned in countless news reports and culinary articles. There's no way I could prove it, but just the claim alone means that A7 is not applicable. This article certainly attempts to make the company seem notable by talking about performing services in multiple countries. That to me equates to a claim for notability, but when that notability can't be proven then the article should be deleted (in a discussion just like this one). --  At am a  頭 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, nor does it pass A7. Ohiostandard (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * COmment Dear administrators, please do not delete my article. The article seems unambiguous and advertising, because the company has not been active since the year of its foundation (2005). It has started to function only a few months ago, and due to this we do not have third parties' sources, articles, etc. What should I do in this case? Thanks.(Jacobs516 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC))
 * you've given very good reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. also WP:OWN and WP:COI apply in this case. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Only five English Google hits, two of which are here on Wikipedia. Article has no third-party sourcing to assert notability and so it fails WP:N.  ArcAngel (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a private accounting consultancy company that provides accounting, controlling, recovery and risk-advisory services.  Such a business would have a ways to go before becoming a household name, and there's no showing that this business has done so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per author's own admission above, the company is in start-up mode; it may become notable, but it isn't yet. JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The company has just started to function and due to this we are not in Google, and in other sources. We need some time to make it. The article will meet notability, but it is impossible to implement it immediately. Please, give us some time to work on it. (Jacobs516 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to help publicise a company before it is notable. In any case, "we are not in Google" suggests that you are connected with the company and have a conflict of interest in writing about it. I will post some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL also applies here. being notable in the future is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like an advertisement. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - By the admission of what seems to be an affiliated person above, the company's notability has yet to be established because it has "just started to function". Perhaps at some future time the company might warrant an article, but not now. --  At am a  頭 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Multiple searches on anything related to this company fails to provide any mentions, much less the significant coverage required for notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:03, 13 September 2009 (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.