Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Situs.com


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Situs.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not meet the notability guidelines for companies. Okamialvis (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Lots of references on the web, including Reuters, Wall-street Journal etc. (Search Search). Please search with different keywords before nominating an article for deletion.- Mar11 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the copy is strongly promotional and belongs on the company web site. Wikipedia is not an office directory. Likewise, I'm only seeing self-promotion as far as the sources go. Being a subsidiary of another non-notable entity strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. Also, some time since the nomination the AfD template has been removed from the article diff, which is against policy. So COI editing is very likely. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the one Keep vote simply suggests "There's sourcing" but it's vague in what we should actually accept and what are the specific concerns here, and I'll specify them: It's advertising sourced by only announcements, that's not substance at all. SwisterTwister   talk  18:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but cut to a minimum - After reviewing the article and the sources, I will vote to keep the article. The company has enough coverage in independent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Stone Point Capital is also a notable company. Not having an article in Wikipedia does not mean that the company is non notable. However the article should be copy-edited to remove the promotional materials. I have removed an entire section describing their services. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2017 (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.