Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGIS


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

SGIS

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

This organization does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "Notability" as stated on []. Speedy deletion has been proposed before on this article, but was declined because an individual indicated that this page met "Notability" criteria because it had a published article in Entrepreneur naming the company featured on this page as a fast growing corporation. Notability criteria, however, requires that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This article falls into the latter. Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience. Finally, when considering whether or not "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" exist substantially, the only possibility would be on the national economy, as this company is described as a national company. However, a gross revenue of $86 million is arguably insignificant to the national economy and, since the company is privately held, information on revenues generated in taxes, profit, losses, assets, etc. is not publically verifiable. RJSampson (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How is Entrepreneur Magazine narrow and industry-specific? Magazine Publishers of America rates Entrepreneur extremely well as a national business publication, even their website is listed among the top ten websites belonging to a national magazine: http://www.magazine.org/DIGITAL/22508.aspx. Furthermore, Inc. magazine is also cited - another well reviewed national publication, as well industry publications and national publications such as Business Journals. -- Chelsea2007a (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks large enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's completely single-sourced, and therefore fails notabiltiy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Spammy advertisement with no indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:ORG - the references are largely trivial or stuff the company has published itself Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to this talk: "Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience."


 * 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.