Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarchFirst


 * 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MarchFirst

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned finding an assertion of notability. The matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the fifteen sources on the talk page and the 890 that aren't listed there. One of the bigger corporate collapses of the dot-com shakeout, and certainly one that attracted major media attention. ~ trialsanderrors 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, huge huge company in the field, one of the most spectacular flameouts of the dot-com collapse. You can understand why it was speedied, though, so cleanup is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Company is clearly notable. Article is much improved. Rant: With all due respect for the problem of spam, this is a posterchild example of being overly aggressive with speedy deletion. This article was started in Feb 2004, edited by a bunch of users, but not very good (like many WP articles) and not explicitly asserting notability. Then in Feb 2007 someone slapped a CSD on it for not asserting notability, and it was duly shortly thereafter deleted by an admin. After a DRV and an AFD and a bunch of editing, it looks like we'll get it right and the article is much improved, but wouldn't it have been so much more pleasant and more efficient to either politely encourage editors to assert notability or at worst "put it on probation" via PROD? Speedy deletion should be for clearly uncontroversial deletes - even if you haven't heard of something, if multiple people have over the span of months or years edited the article, it's worth getting some more eyeballs on it rather than nuking it. Speedy delete ought to mean only "it's patently clear this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, let's not waste time discussing". Rant off. Martinp 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:CORP by a wide margin. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 6 April 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.