Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vagrant World

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vagrant World
Doesn't establish notability. --fvw *  04:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 04:53, 2 Jan 005 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with the redirects Vagrant world and Vagrant World -publishing&production-. SWAdair | Talk  04:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and probably advertising.   &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, company vanity (i.e. likely advertising). &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 04:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, delete redirects too. Rje 13:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep it, please. It seems very bias that you decide to keep information about big companies, such as Xerox etc and straight away want to delete information about small companies, such as ours. Keep in mind that all information is factual. Another argument for keeping this entry is the entry for Prous Science. Judging from user comments, Prous Science is likely to be kept, so if Prous Science is allowed Vagrant World should also be allowed. Vagrant World does not have to be non-notable, it depends who you ask doesn't it? If there is anything we can do to make the entry for Vagrant World more notable or tolorable to you, please tell us.User:vagrantworld 16:04, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Big companies are included because they affect the lives of millions and are therefore encyclopedic. Small companies do not tend to be included as this isn't the Yellow Pages. Average Earthman 22:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The difference is that Xerox is a well-established company that has become a household name.  This makes it notable.  Vagrant World is not yet two years old and has, seemingly, no particular accomplishments or noteworthiness.  This makes it not notable.  If there is in fact something that makes it noteworthy &mdash; publishing a book that's become regarded as important in its field, for instance &mdash; then that should be mentioned in the article. Shimeru 23:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, it could do with a major clean up though. Megan1967 00:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not (yet) notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: spam. Clean up the redirects too. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable ad.  Delete redirects as well. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Greaser 07:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam for non-notable small publisher. Article reads like an outline draft of a press release.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.