Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo (2nd nomination)

I did not feel anger when posting it, though I swear without issue because to me its just speech. I read the guidelines and rules, note I did not add this to the debate page, I am not challenging the outcome, I was trying to start a dialogue and review of the process. Regardless since it seems to be taken the wrong way I deleted my original post and am no longer seeking a debate of all parties involved in the discussion. Tacticomed (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Tacticomed (you forgot to sign your name), the deletion process went fair and square. Your claim (in the second deletion nomination of this article) that this "Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history" - is factually incorrect, as evidenced now even more than before by the additional references I've added to it (see external links), which further establish notability.
 * The angry remarks and language you are using now do not belong here. Since you're a new user I advice you to read some of Wikipedia's guidelines and instructions, and for concerns regarding this subject - deletion of an article - there's more information at Template:Deletion debates. Yambaram (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind I am _NOT_ intentionally being mean, angry, or complaining. Since you are the one person who engaged I feel we should at least try to do what I originally wanted to do with my post (note that I readily admit I failed miserably at this, since if you felt my post was in anger then I did not make myself understood at all, and that failure rests solely with me, not you nor anyone else). I read the guidelines and as I linked earlier other WP guidelines. To me it seemed the people who had not read them were the persons citing them. That is in essence what I was saying and trying to debate.
 * If you will do me the favor of continuing this discussion, I would like to try a different approach. Let us take a single item at a time, and as peers discuss it.
 * You state my original claim "Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history" is factually incorrect, and cite your additions to the page as now making this even less true. You cite a business acquisition, and a change of CEO. In terms of Business News these are simply akin to legal notices in the newspaper, something we simply do for record, I do not feel they are notable in a general sense and especially not when it comes to WP notability.
 * Let me put forward an example. I own my own company which is a registered legal entity. Do you feel my company is notable enough for a WP entry if I now cite the governmental records and the websites that contain an index on my company and its related public information? I certainly do not, and I assume you do too, if this assumption is wrong please reply and let me know and discontinue reading as the rest does not apply. So we now have a business entity which exists in numerous indexes. What would make my company notable enough for WP entry? I am interested in your thoughts, what are the bare minimum by your opinion at which a WP entry should exist?
 * If you do not wish to engage in this dialogue that is fine as well, I am asking a favor of you and you are under no obligation to humor me. I do ask that if you decide not to engage with me to at least reply with a message stating you are not interested, and not simply ignore it entirely. Thank you. Tacticomed (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)