Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetMovers (2nd nomination)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers

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

Uninformative article about company with little or no notability WuhWuzDat 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while the FT article quoted is specifically about this company it doesn't do much to establish its significance. The Guardian article mentions the company in the first sentence, and once again at the end, but this article is clearly not about the company - it only mentions the company in passing. A gnews search didn't turn up an additional sources to help establish the required "significant" coverage. 7 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Miami33139 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not spam, it is not being sent to anyone and no-one is being made to read it, people who search Wikipedia for information on this subject can find it. This article is informative and about a notable organisation. NetMovers is increasingly expanding and although they may feature in only two press articles, this could be down to the fact they don't heavily publicize everything they do. The concept of what NetMovers do is relatively new and becoming increasingly popular. Last year they won a UK Chamber of Commerce award and also had Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister at the time, visit the headquarters to congratulate the company on their success. See press releases on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorycoast1987 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Ivorycoast1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.