Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JD Researching

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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD Researching

Not verifiable; the article even declares this is the case. Also, it is not clear that this is a notable company. Ginkgo 100 ^talk 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Cybergoth 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V with 15 ghits. MER-C 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -WarthogDemon 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Austin2040 11:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is notable, it just is not well known to the public but very well known amongst investment firms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.18.68 (talk • contribs).
Comment The comments, afd tag, and article's talk page were all removed by User:67.36.18.68. -WarthogDemon 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment Fixed everything up. If I know the policy good enough, they just sealed the deal on the article's deletion haven't they? -WarthogDemon 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not necessarily; the behavior of a user — especially a newer user who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy — has no real bearing on the notability of the article. However, continued disruption could eventually lead to blocking. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize for the deleting, didn't mean to do it, I am kind of new to wikipedia. -Austin2040

Comment I just got word of this post. JD Researching is a very popular firm on wallstreet. And it is true that you won't read much about them in any public articles. Investment firms pay top dollars to keep companies like JD Researching out of the public eye. I have even witnessed a few of their members speak at some gaming development conferences. These guys are real and very influential in the investment community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.61 (talk • contribs).
Do not delete. This company is very big and very popular. Also, I did not delete anything, someone edited this thing to make it look like I apologized for deleting something. That was not me. Anyways, I wouldn't delete this article, JD Researching is huge on wallstreet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk • contribs). -WarthogDemon 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strange that your IPs are quite similar. -WarthogDemon 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There I fixed it. I was the one that accidently deleted it, dunno who the other person is. IP's can't be the same. Mine is from the midwest while theirs is from NY. Still goes to show that someone knows who they are. -Austin2040

Comment I was actually referring to the two IPs. Wasn't thinking either one was yours. Regardless I was just making an observation. No way I can tell if its the same person so I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. Forgive my sight paranoia. -WarthogDemon 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgive and forget. We all make mistakes, I am proof of that. Lets just stop all of this debating and let the article stay. I want to become a good contributor to wikipedia.org. I will make sure that any new company articles in the future are more notable then this one, but I still think that this article should stay. I agree it is on the borderline of being a non-notable company due to its nature of work but it is still a rather large company and this company has done a lot behind the scenes on wallstreet and the video game industry. -Austin2040

Keep - Well known company when it comes to research and analysis. The main article needs more detail but it has the proper "under work" tags. Keep this article around and see who links to it. I would probably change the title to "JD Researching Consulting Group" as that is their real name.--Sdlang 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand Based on the comments here from those who might know, and from the list of clients, it i clearly notable. Tho documenting the activities of such consultants is not easy, a really thorough search should find something more in industry magazines.DGG 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100% I learned about these guys in one of my graduate math classes. My professor said he knows the president and he often helps them out on a contract basis to create formulas for their research. My professor is a huge video game freak and he often uses the formulas he created for them in our class. Some seriously advanced stuff, the majority of the class can barely understand that they mean (and this is a MBA graduate program). Keep this article, I am sure it will get expanded. --DDstrike 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines at WP:CORP. Legion of sockpuppets deployed in support certainly does not help, either. A Train ^{take the} 15:10, 13 December 2006 (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.