Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JobServe


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JobServe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found no notability for this company. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be a major recruitment website, with a decent amount of detail in the articles at, , and possibly  (behind a paywall so I can't see it). Dricherby (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Did the nom look anywhere but in the existing inadequate article? I found 2001 [article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4480528/Jobserve-in-the-dock.html] in the Telegraph, and their earlier article on an unrelated issue with the company listed there at the bottom also,as well as  ,  and   *  are I think fairly reliable also, though interview-based.. Most of the several hundred other refs in   Google News are undisguised  or disguised  advertisements.  Additional, the site's owner is apparent on the Rich List, & the site was "the first dot com company to be awarded a Queens Award for excellence. .  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. Geez. Do you honestly think that "I found no notability" means "I found no notability in the article"? SL93 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, and (to nom), perhaps consider withdrawing. Topic passes WP:GNG:
 * Jobserve in the dock - Telegraph
 * Big day for job hunters as JobServe Live hits down (From Daily Echo)
 * Tiptree, Great Totham: 'I'm a dot.com millionaire!' (From Brentwood Weekly News)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. And, since I'm being oversensitive to people being anywhere near uncivil today (I admit it), I would like to politely remind User:DGG that it is better-faith to assume that the nominator's WP:BEFORE was unsuccessful than to assume that they failed to do it, unless they have a history of it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Also, although the sources have been added, the article's current state is really WP:UGLY. That thing needs a LOT of work. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 7 May 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.