Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Verde Services


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Terra Verde Services

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

A company that seems not to meet the notability criteria. So far all that has been offered as proof of notability is a short news article on the company's formation in the Phoenix Business Journal. This is valid coverage but it does not seem to demonstrate significant coverage in itself. The Wikipedia article was written by somebody associated with the company and there is already some discussion of this on the talk page. I am not seeing RS coverage when searching in Google. (Note that the UK based company of the same name seems to be unconnected.) DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article does provide a reference from (as far as I can tell) is a reliable source here. The author is Patrick O'Grady which is a writer for the Phoenix Business Journal.  I did some searching on your claim that the writer of the PBJ article is associated with this company (I can't tell if you're saying the PBJ article or the Wiki article) and can't find anything.  All I can find is that he has written many articles for the PBJ (Google search on PBJ+O'Grady).  I assume you mean the Wiki article but I wanted to be sure.  The article is written solely on the merger of the two companies that made the subject of this article which, in my eyes, means it's about this company/article and therefore fulfills WP:N.  While, like you said, there is an obvious COI, that does not justifies this article for deletion.  AfD isn't for cleanup.  I am a hard advocate for deleting advertisements and I will be watching/editing this page.  If it does look like an advertisement, I'll be the first to mark it for SD.  At this time, it doesn't so my vote is to Keep.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Sorry. I was unclear. The Wikipedia article is written by somebody from the subject company. Not the PBJ article! I have clarified the nomination text above to make this clear now. Please see the article's talk page for proof. The author uses the term "our" to describe the company. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I don't think that the one reference (albeit a moderately strong reliable third-party source) is enough to confer notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per TreasuryTag. Notability has not been sufficiently established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:18, 3 March 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.