Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartpost


 * 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. Tone 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Smartpost

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

Non-notable as sources are press releases or not third party. Ash (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I planned to speedy this, but forgot. Promotional stub about non-notable company. -- Sander Säde 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added third party sources (news reports and a blog) to this article's sources. Can you please tell me why this is a non-notable company? It is a unique company and solution in Estonia. What are the criterias for a "non-notable company"? --User:Helge123 13:57, 7 august 2009 (GMT+2)
 * Please refer to Notability (organizations and companies) for the criteria involved.—Ash (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case I would ask, why is there a separate article for DHL Packstation in Germany? Comparing the numbers (one packstation per 34 thousand inhabitants in Germany, one packstation per 40 thousand inhabitants in Estonia) shows that DHL Packstation is equally "non-notable"? -- User:Helge123 12:38, 10 august 2009 (GMT+2)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Sander Säde 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So when will the company become notable and when can I rewrite it? It has numerous references in the media, a unique solution in Estonia, proportional in size to its foreign counterparts. What is your criteria for deciding that it's non-notable? --User:Helge123 13:45, 10 august 2009 (GMT+2)
 * The criteria is explained in WP:ORG. There is no rule to stop you from improving the article while this AFD is open. If you find good quality sources demonstrating that Smartpost, for example, has been recognized in the general press for supplying some unique services then you will have a good rationale to justify notability. As a starting point you could consider the very few relevant sources highlighted in this Google News search.—Ash (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @722  · 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Looks like a weak delete. Weak because of WP:CSB issues. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (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.