Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDM Corporation


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

RDM Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability (and searching just finds press releases). Presently painfully-obviously constructed by COI editor. Could be stubified, I suppose. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The main section of the article was a WP:COPYVIO from this. I have removed it, so it now has a much simpler lead section (and doesn't use words like "we" and "our"). AllyD (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Among the most ridiculous things on the internet is PR Newswire attempting to charge me $4.95 for a copy of a ten year old press release about this outfit. Note: I did not pay. This is the sort of worthless garbage coughed up when attempting to find coverage in reliable sources of this check digitizing company.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's a fairly old company and that makes the article somewhat notable. But doesn't have any sources. The first one is invalid, the second points to financial ranking site. Very weak keep. scope_creep talk 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Extremely old businesses may be notable at least in part when reliable sources discuss the great age of the company in the context of significant coverage. This company has been around since 1987, which is not that old, really. There are many non-notable companies who have been in business much longer. There are also much newer companies that are notable. The deciding factor is significant coverage in reliable sources. Where is it for this company?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking broad WP:SIGCOV. The two references consist of a dead link and a list draw up by a business consultancy. It should not have been hard to find references for a company having notability.  Blue   Riband►   03:29, 7 September 2013 (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.