Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TradeMark Express


 * 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 per WP:CSD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TradeMark Express

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

I think it's unnotable and it's written bu someone at the company. -Zeus- 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, it is written by someone at the company. However, it is no more uncountable than virtually any other company's wiki page wherein the goods/services are described, the history is provided and relevant media is provided. Tmexpress (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon
 * The references are all jokes, and everyone needs to know that the person above is the article writer/company spokeperson. -Zeus- 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn. No reputable references which assert any notability. Laudak (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Spam, fails WP:CORP.  caknuck °  is a silly pudding  06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and block COI editor's spamusername. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Spam. Plastikspork (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to how Wiki works, obviously, so my apologies for all my mistakes. How is it that other companies have Wiki pages, which, in my opinion, are offering even less relevant or notable information. For instance, ShareASale or LegalZoom. The information detailed for TradeMark Express is easily on par with the information noted in those 2 Wiki pages. Any guidance is appreciated. 76.27.230.181 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon
 * Those companies don't "have Wiki pages"; there are pages about them. If any article fails to meet our standards for notability of the topic, it is subject to deletion. The existence of another article is no justification for violation of our standards. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay I understand now. It seems odd to me that someone outside the company would care enough to create a page about them. Again, my apologies for violating the rules. 76.27.230.181 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon
 * Well, that's kinda the point: companies nobody cares about are not notable enough to have articles written about them. People outside Apple Inc. or Cargill care about the companies, for better or worse, enough to have written about them. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we get closure on this? -Zeus- 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete clearly not notable, should have been speedied IMHO ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the deletion. I clearly misunderstood the rules so please do what needs to be done. If I can delete on my end, let me know & I'll do so promptly. Tmexpress (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon
 * You need to put this text at the top of the page: -Zeus- 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged.  Matt  (  Talk  )   03:36, 8 February 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.