Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jax Desmond Worldwide


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jax Desmond Worldwide

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

Google news search (all dates) generated zero hits. Google search generated no hits that appeared to be significant coverage (despite numerous directory entries, etc.).

Moreover, the references in the article do not provide any evidence of notability:

External Links References One commentator suggested that having no verifiable information is evidence of being "a well run Private Military". However true this may be, it doesn't help in satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements, which (by definition) require third party sources. Bongomatic (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jax Desmond Worldwide's official website. Not third party.
 * Close Protection World's website. Unable to find any reference to the subject on this website.
 * Freelance Security. Unable to find any reference to the subject on this website.
 * Kiss Your Second Amendment Goodbye. Broken link.
 * Link now repaired Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fugitive Recovery Network. One-line listing of contact details in a directory with no editorial commentary.
 * International Contractors Association. One-line listing of contact details in a directory with no editorial commentary.
 * The Sunday Indian - India's Largest News Magazine. No reference (see below for mention in article in this publication).
 * Second Amendment Love.com. One mention (without any editorial commentary) in a long blog entry.
 * ORCA Government Records. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.
 * The Sunday Indian article. Mentioned in passing as one of the "biggest American PMCs" in a list including six others without any evidence or editorial commentary. No discussion of the company beyond its name.
 * Jax Desmond Worldwide - Official Website. Not third party.
 * ORCA Government Records. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.
 * Central Contractor Registration. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of acceptable references in the Article. Companies like these try to stay out of the news, and when they do make news it is usually to report troubles. No GHits is no surprise for a well run Private Military. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see above enumeration. Which of the references do you think provides evidence of notability? Bongomatic (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the above. The fact that it is Canadian, in an ocean of US firms, is. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the notability guidelines for companies and fail to see how this factoid qualifies the company for inclusion. The guideline states:
 * An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.  All content must be verifiable.
 * The Canadian factor doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions, either. Bongomatic (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it does... "common sense and the occasional exception" would seem to make sense to me, as it is the sole Canadian addition to Private military company. WP:N would be derived from being the only one in the country. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A search for "Jax Desmond" on Factiva revealed no newspaper coverage for this company. Without coverage it will be impossible to verify information in this article. If coverage occurs in the future the article can be recreated then.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As you said the Sunday Indian named it as one of the Top 5 PMC's in the world out 470,703 which should be enough to consider it notable. In addition out of the 470,703 they are only one of five listed on Gamespot.com as one of the top five Real Life PMCs portrayed in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4: Rise of the Patriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources, like the Sunday Indian, just mention something with no significant coverage to write an article, then I think Wikipedia should do the same. If there is a Wikipedia article on PMCs perhaps it should mention Jax Desmond Worldwide. And it looks like Private military company already does this.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the list is of seven six, not five, contractors, and the Sunday Indian didn't state that this was a list of the top largest such contractors. Further, size by itself isn't a criterion for notability, nor more emphatically for verifyiability. I think it's an interesting (but false) claim that being "portrayed in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4: Rise of the Patriots" is a demonstration of notability. By analogy, are all the armies of videogame engineers who put their own faces on characters automatically notable, too? Bongomatic (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Apart from Blackwater, some of the biggest American PMCs include the likes of AirScan, C3 Defense, Dyn Corporation, Jax Desmond and Tactical Response Service." That's the quote from the Sunday Indian. I count five. And it does state that Jax Desmond Worldwide is one of the biggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was including Titan, mentioned in the next sentence, but even if you don't include that, Blackwater needs to be counted. Bongomatic (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect this doesn't seem like a matter of notability or verifiability. It seems like a personal vendetta Bongomatic. Who really cares whether it's 5, or 6, or 10... the fact is that the Sunday Indian which is India's largest business magazine named Jax Desmond Worldwide as one of the biggest. That should be considered notable in addition to the video game and other articles such as the one posted in the Atlantic Free Press. With respect to verifiablity, what's more verifiable than a US Federal Government database. If you visit CCR.gov or BPN.gov you can do a simple search by company name which confirms more than half the information contained in the article. As Exit2Dos2000 pointed out, any good private military company won't have a lot of press unless they had issues. The fact that Jax Desmond Worldwide has been listed in articles and press as one of the top 5, 6 or 7 PMCs out of more than 470,000 is notable enough and YES, to answer your question any army portrayed in a best selling video game should be considered notable, especially if it's a private force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly--who cares whether it's 5, 6, 10, or 100? The notability of a company (with respect to being a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia) is not established by size alone, or by Canadian-ness, but by significant coverage in reliable sources. So if you think it's vendetta to wish to see Wikipedia policies adhered to, view it that way--but I don't. Bongo  matic  12:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically how many "reliable sources" have to cover it before it's deemed significant coverage? I'd like to know the number exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the notability criteria (which are referenced in the original AfD nomination text above), "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." So, being mentioned in passing (even if being alluded to as a large organization) does not constitute "significant coverage". It would be helpful if people read the policies before opining on their applicable or inapplicability. Bongo  matic  14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be mentioned that Wp:There is no deadline. An Article deemed Notable by the group can survive without any Citations until such time as the can be located. (I would also like to politely mention, dont WP:Bite. Anyone is free to comment even without haveing read any policys, guidelines or essays. Having not read any of the afore mentioned, does not make a persons opinion less valid.) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How soon until this matter is resolved whether it be the page is kept or deleted and who makes the final decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All AfD's are decided by consensus, not by any one person. In most cases discussions are closed after 5-7 days of discussion. An Administrator will then close the discussion, encapsulate it from further comment, and determine what the overall group think is. If the outcome is still disputed, there is a Wp:Deletion review process. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you expect will happen with this article? I defenitely dispute the deletion and think it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned that (a) the article may be deleted; but (b) you may have additional information in the future that would give rise to a non-deletable article, you may wish to create a user account and save the current article text in a sub-page of your user page. This way, you can improve the references as you find them / they become available, and re-create the article in so-called "article space" once it's sufficient to demonstrate verifiable notability. If you need assistance with this process, let me know once you have a user account and I will assist. Bongo  matic  10:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent reliable sources available other than the Sunday Indian article, which only treats the subject as one name on a list. Everything else is like the sources in the article: blogs and B2B marketing directories. (That includes CCR and ORCA, which only prove that Jax Desmond is a US government contractor; I just found 451 Virginia-based janitorial service companies by searching CCR. The NAICS code is 561720; try it yourself.)
 * Interestingly, there was an article titled Jax Desmond by the same author which was deleted after an April AfD. It had pretty much the same problems. Rklear (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Rklear. Lack of nontrivial coverage is fatal. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No way to establish WP:V.  For all we know, this article could be a hoax.  Digital Ninja WTF 00:30, 16 November 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.