Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBG Expense Management


 * 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.

MBG Expense Management

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

Advert, NN, no ref. Loukinho (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CSD Mayalld (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CSD, no indication of importance or significance; take your choice. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC) - see below
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references, and I think that notability has now been demonstrated. If an article seems promotional but the topic seems as if it might be notable, it is better to fix the article than to delete it. In this case, the article does not seem unduly promotional. --Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary sources provided. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The three items from TMCnet and the single item from Wireless News are all secondary sources. --Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Two of them make no mention of MBG anywhere. I didn't bother to check the third one. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. That statement is just plain wrong. Use your browser's find function to search the articles for MBG. Note that two of the four articles mention MBG is their headlines. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the two I looked at are just invalid to establish the company's notability. If you have to use a find function to see that the article mentions MBG in passing, then the article cannot be used to establish the company's notability. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked at the references, which are enough to make me strike my "speedy A7" !vote above. But what we have is (1) the company has passed an audit (2) report of a press release (3) it's a founding member of a trade association (4) it has organised a survey - statement from the director of marketing. I don't find that really up to the standard of WP:ORG which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." and excludes "Press releases... and other works where the company... talks about itself—whether published by the company... itself, or re-printed by other people." JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a tech services business that fits the profile. As JohnCD points out, the supplied references aren't really independent of the business; and they aren't in general interest publications, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 1 August 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.