Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkillStorm

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkillStorm

This organization does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "Notability" as stated on [[1]]. Speedy deletion has been proposed before on this article, but was declined because an individual indicated that this page met "Notability" criteria because it had a published article in Entrepreneur naming the company featured on this page as a fast growing corporation. Notability criteria, however, requires that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This article falls into the latter. Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience. Finally, when considering whether or not "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" exist substantially, the only possibility would be on the national economy, as this company is described as a national company. However, a gross revenue of $20 million is arguably insignificant to the national economy and, since the company is privately held, information on revenues generated in taxes, etc. is not publically verifiable. RJSampson (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Also a spammy advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Solutions" and "Services" sections are advertisement. A voluminous list does nothing to add to the notability of the company.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Funny thing is, now that the spammy sections are gone, the article entry is mostly a list of other articles on the web, not very encyclopedic. Perhaps if somebody could generate notable text from those other articles, then can this article stay. --Emana (Talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Emana about it being a list of other articles on the web, but I think with a little rewriting the page is a good contribution. I've rewritten the section where it listed the awards and deleted some of the items listed in the news section. Adiaza2181 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- With some small work done to make it read more encyclopedic, I believe this company is noteworthy enough to keep this article/contribution. Smarie180 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references provided don't really provide evidence of notability which isbeing the subject of a non-trivial third party source. A couple are blurbs that support some minor fact in the article, but don't clearly demonstrate notability. Spammy but that can be helped if references and sources were there. At this point, they aren't. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading this I think it should stay. Looks good to me and sounds like a notable company in South Florida.Dtpapers (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (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.