Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa data


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Melissa data

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable company. Provided references show nothing more than mention in passing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - This page should NOT be marked for deletion as it is not unambiguously promotional. It contains relevant, current information about the founding date, founder and products of an established company with over 10,000 customers and significant editorial content from multiple independent sources. The company provide a free lookup service for ZIP Codes, addresses, street names, house numbers and maps. 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.3.166 (talk)
 * Comment The page is not nominated for deletion as being unambiguously promotional. If that were the problem, it would have been tagged for speedy deletion.  It is nominated for being about a company that shows no signs of notability.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added information/links from independent secondary sources. Remwnzqg 04:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - All I was able to find were press releases. No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If kept, move to Melissa Data for proper capitalization. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - In June, 2012 Melissa Data was included in the Software Development Times 100 -- as one of the top 13 companies in the Database & Data Tools category. SD Times is a reliable independent source which is an expert in the relevant industry. Melissa Data website is a frequently visited site for their free lookups and Alexa shows them in the top 5,000 visited websites in the United States. AaronViz 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Aaronviz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - "Up and ccoming" is not an criteria for inclusion. In fact, it is often evidence that it is premature for a Wikipedia article about the subject.  Significant coverage in reliable sources is what is needed to establish that the subject should be included in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to AFD particpants: AaronViz altered his comment after my reply to remove the assertion of "up and coming", and add an assertion that SD Time is a reliable source in this edit. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've looked into SD Times and can find no significant coverage about Melissa Data. Being named in their Top 100 list does not represent significant coverage as they are simply part of a list with no futher coverage.  Searching for any other coverage about Melissa Data on SD Times shows only 2 press releases, . -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article references are either self-produced or nothing more than list appearances. No references can be found that meet WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:18, 16 July 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.