Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SVS Printing Company


 * 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline - WP:CORP. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

SVS Printing Company

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Author has no other contribs and may have COI. More to the point, Google doesn't offer sources to support WP:CORP. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Steve Crossin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:N and WP:CORP, and possibly WP:COI as well. ArcAngel (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Google search should be for its Dutch-langauge name, Drukkerij SVS. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Drukkerij+SVS%22 for about 1500 ghits. --Eastmain (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This company gets 1550 GHits, but 98% of those are Yellow Pages listings, and none of them are in reliable sources. Basically this is just a run-of-the-mill printing company for your wedding invitations or your business cards. The article about this company has also been deleted over at the Dutch language Wikipedia, see nl:SVS Drukkerij. A  ecis Brievenbus 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - obviously not a "run of the mill" company if claims in article are true regarding printing for major corporations. It seems to be sourced, and makes a claim of notability, so unless you can understand Dutch it's hard to say otherwise.  Someone ought to evaluate the article for copyvio vis-a-vis this site.  Either wikipedia, or the site, is a word-for-word copy of the other in places.  Wikidemo (talk)
 * I don't see how this is a claim to notability. Printing corporate publications for notable companies doesn't make a company notable, because notability is not inherited. Basically they're on the same level as the company providing the coffee in the cafeteria. A  ecis Brievenbus 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability, no evidence of good citations from Ghits etc., and reliable sources are unlikely to be found. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2008 (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.