Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footprints Recruiting

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 to delete. With apologies to Mangoe, who's arguing in good faith, this AfD was started by a sockpuppet. That's not okay and sockpuppetry shouldn't get its way. The "no consensus" outcome is procedural rather than because of the headcount; it specifically allows a fresh nomination by a good faith editor. NAC—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Footprints Recruiting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Set.it.free (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Blatant promotion for a company or organization, in violation of Wikipedia terms of use stating that advertising or promotion is prohibited.[reply]

Retain this article. It's a straightforward description of a major Canadian teacher placement agency. Examples of "blatant" or "promotional" would be helpful, especially so since Set.it.free is not a member of Wikipedia, and thus anonymous, and this entry has been subject to repeated vandalism.

Teneriff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see significant assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't anyone even click on the "news" button before judging this article? There are a ton of reliable sources out there. I added two to the article but there are many more. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Who is the nominator? User:Set.it.free is a WP:Single purpose account which was created on May 12, apparently for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion. I thought you had to be an "established user" to nominate an article for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the references. Without a single exception they are articles about a trend in which the company in question appears as an example; they are not articles about that particular company. I'm sure a lot of people think my standards are too high, but this doesn't strike me as establishing the notability of this company. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This entire article is specifically about the company. This devotes about a third of its text to the company. This verifies that Footprints is "the largest independent recruiter for ESL teachers in the world." --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.