Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidnightBox.com, Inc.


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. J I P | Talk 06:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

MidnightBox.com, Inc.
Self-advertisement by non-notable corporation. Poster removed prod and advert tags. Henning Makholm 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know to not remove the tag. Quick read said it was 'ok to edit', I assumed full article. Future edits will leave 'discussion' tag in place. What can be done to make article more NPOV? Thanks! MidnightBox.com, Inc. 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was OK to remove the tag; that just mean that we'll have to go through this slightly more formal process to get the article deleted. The problem is not POV, it is (1) your company is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, (2) even if it was, you should not create it yourself. See Autobiography, which should apply mutatis mutandis to writing about busineses that one is the founder or manager of. Henning Makholm 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This should probably be merged with Articles_for_deletion/Midnightbox.com. Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. Both are self-adverts from same company, but the contents (before Midnightbox.com was changed to redirect here) was more blantantly spam than the current page. Not sure whether votes to delete the latter should automatically be taken to apply to the former. Henning Makholm 13:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete every and anything related to this site. Having seen both histories, this is definitely a case of WP:VSCA.--み使い Mitsukai 14:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Mea culpa. Don't know how I forgot to list it. Henning Makholm 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wow, since when did deleting an Article become personal? - that just manages to get by on their stolen business model ?? - isnt that a little biased? Good thing Google.com came up with that whole Search the Internet idea themselves. I understand its non-notable company to date, that will change in time. There are also plenty of companies who started their own wikipedia article themselves. MidnightBox, Inc. will be back when the time is right. Midnightbox,_Inc. 00:59, 23 March 2006
 * Delete per Mitsukai. Feezo (Talk) 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising Paul 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For all stated reasons. Even if this were noteworthy, all the content has been contributed by the company and they originated the article as well.--Trypsin 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant self-promotion from a non-notable company that just manages to get by on their stolen business model. Manfrin 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. --Soumyasch 06:03, 23 March 2006 (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.