Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobing.com


 * 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The result was   speedy keep, effectively a withdrawn nomination. Remaining article content issues may be addressed through normal processes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jobing.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am proposing a Delete & Redirect to Jobing.com Arena. This page was a redirect to Jobing.com Arena, but that was removed today, and content was added to the page. Reading through the article, it seems like a big advertisement for the company. I think the redirect should be reapplied. I would have just done it, but I think we should do this formally to prevent any more situations in the future. Rjd0060 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there have been substantial (positive) edits to this article since I opened this AfD. - Rjd0060 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the nom, I am surprised and impressed of the number of changes and references added to this article. I believe that it may be suitable to keep now. - Rjd0060 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a student at ASU, creating this article as part of a project for a class. There are a number of similar entries, such as articles on employment website Monster.com, so if you delete this one, please delete those other entries as well. User:Phanavan 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please refer to WP:WAX in reference to your comment. - Rjd0060 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have used published stories, in addition to company information, to write what I feel is an objective article- including one front-page story from the New York Times; Rather than simply deleting information about a company, can you help me change? User:Phanavan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! --Phanavan 23:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Needs rewritten in places, and better cites, but the indications are that notability can be established. It seems a bit perverse to suggest that the Arena is notable, but the organisation that named it isn't. So perhaps this AfD is a bit quick off the mark. The problem with the NY Times references are you need to register to read them. Links like that are discouraged. Cites that are links through the company's own website also don't really count as reliable third party cites, even if they in turn refer to other websites. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We certainly permit references to articles requiring registration--or even payment--we encourage the use of free sources, certainly--& the NYT is free now-- but we even more encourage the use of the best and most appropriate source for the subject. (though not for external links--see WP:EL) Material from a company's web site can be used for routine facts, like where their branch offices are.  All of this can and should be discussed on the article talk page in any case. (as can the real problem, excessive detail about internal corporate affairs and the merger with other small companies.)--but:


 * Keep as the company seems important enough for notability.DGG (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2007 (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.