Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sublime (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sublime (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I’m nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons involving notability and factuality:
 * 1) The company just opened, it's implied, within the last month or so, so notability seems unlikely.
 * 2) If I specify "Basildon" in my Google query (to distinguish this company from Sublime Media in Seattle, for example), I get 36 hits, none of them to third-party reliable sources.
 * 3) The links to “Site of the Year 2013” intended to corroborate the award claims lead to a page that says nothing about awards, nothing about “Site of the Year”, and nothing about Sublime.
 * 4) I was skeptical about the awards anyway for several reasons, none of them conclusive on their own but offered here in conjunction with my previous observations. (a) Given that there are three months left in 2013, who is giving out awards for best-of-2013? (b) Given that they just opened, how have they had time to produce all this award-winning work? (c) Looking at their own website I see that it has missing images, the text on their What We Do page is off the screen in Firefox, and their Our Work page is laid out wrong in IE and Firefox, with the calendar column overlapping the large image. Not what I would expect from a company that is winning web design awards.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not because I'm not impressed with their site, but for the lack of notability shown and proved. I've deleted this once already, and couldn't see the relevance of the link to what appears to be someone called Stefan's Bootstrap work. The company appears to have a 'date of birth' (taken from the Persondata on the version deleted by NawlinWiki yesterday) of 28 February 2013 - which definitely doesn't explain why one of the Stefan Crain references was allegedly retrieved on the 24th February 2013 - four days before the company was 'born' and several months before the first version of the article (the other SC link was retrieved two days later). The first version was wasn't referenced, but had links to the company's site, Facebook and Twitter. If they got 10 clients in the first month, obviously someone liked what they do, even if I don't (personal taste...). There are at least two more Sublime Medias in the UK - sublimemediauk.com in Earl's Barton, Northants and sublimemedia.co.uk in London, but a dead link. Confusingly, the one here is sublimededia.co - a Columbian domain. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the Samrisa Blanca site referred to says it was developed by iVivid Media (and doesn't tell you where they are - which isn't helpful if you are in Inverness wanting your teeth whitened, and they're in, say, Folkestone...). Your Wedding Plan is also iVivid (and down for refurbishment), and Running Man appears to be a disco or so on, doesn't tell you what area, and was developed by iVisual [sic] Media, copyright 2012. Interesting. Probably a good explanation somewhere... Peridon (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re .co, some businesses have picked up on that TLD when the corresponding .com one is already in use. Like all those .tv websites that aren't based in Tuvalu. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, these awards don't seem notable and neither does the company. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and lack of any indication that the claims to notability are actually claims to notability (i.e. A7 might apply). Recommending that this run its course rather than be speedy-deleted so future re-creations with only minor improvements can be summarily deleted as "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" even if they arguably escape A7.  In other words, allow a new article on the topic only if it's CLEARLY notable, i.e. AFD-proof with respect to notability. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Information I have reported the author's username,, to Usernames for administrator attention. I expect that he will be required to change his username shortly. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just blocked the creator over their name; I am not impressed that the company is notable, either. Just winning awards isn't enough—there are so many out there. It would have to be a notable award. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Has the look of a rather new one-man band to me. Even their own website hardly looks well designed to me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Indeed, this page about what they do includes a bunch of "Image Here" texts and gray text on gray background. Not the best thing to be doing if you are web design company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 4 October 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.