Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verve communications


 * 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. Unfortunately, the sources added do not constitute reliable sources that can be used to justify an article. If Evileyes 247 or anyone else would like to work on this article in their user space, find reliable sources, and try again, I will be happy to provide them with a copy of this article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Verve communications

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

Non-notable outsourcing company. Could not find significant coverage by reliable sources but the search for sources was confounded by name shared by multiple companies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beat me to it.  My own good faith search also produced multiple non-notable companies not believed to be interconnected at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet the minimum requirements set out in notability or company-specific notability guidelines. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP i have added so many refrences to show that its a notable company. what else do u want me to add. about the content in the page, I will be slowly filling it up. --Evileyes 247 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, several of the references you added are to different copies of the exact same press release. None of the references are substantive; they don't seem to discuss the company in detail, merely mention it in passing, like "such and such an office park opened this month, and Verve Communications is one of the tenants".  Also, you may want to change the wording of your vote.  If you are going to provide references to prove this company is notable, then you should read WP:N carefully; the most important words in the entire guideline are independent and  significant coverage and reliable sources (see WP:RS).  So far, each of your references seems to violate either the non-trivial or the reliable parts of that.  You can find my name on the internet; it doesn't mean I am notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  I am all for improving this article and finding enough sources so it can be kept.  I think that would be a wonderful thing.  I just don't see where the sources you added help to that end.  Your cute little initialism for the word "Why" may be missed, and someone may mistakenly think you are voting to delete the article as well.  You may want to replace that with "keep". --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you so much for your reply, ill take a not of that and will add more refrences to this page and will try to keep it on wikipedia. "I am all for improving this article and finding enough sources so it can be kept. I think that would be a wonderful thing." i liked this line.. thts encouraging. thanks again. :) --Evileyes 247 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with arguments above. Hiding T 11:31, 23 April 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.