Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptuit

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 Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aptuit

Aptuit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:V. No improvement in the last month since an unsuccessful {{prod}}. BigrTex 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. No other articles in the English Wikipedia mention Aptuit. ~ BigrTex 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would be willing to change my vote if the article cited third party Reliable Sources. I think WP:CORP really boils down to The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. which is a reasonable requirement. Independent coverage separates notable companies from a company I started in my garage yesterday. ~ BigrTex 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, though article requires substaintial rewrite. They have about 2000 employees and googling gives enough results. Also, please note that this was renamed in 2005[1], so sometimes it's mentioned by its old name. MaxSem 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I checked out MaxSem's google link, and all the stories seem to be repackaged press releases, specifically forbidden by WP:CORP. It's not important how many employees or Google hits they have; what matters is if there is enough reliable non-trivial independent coverage. We can't build an encyclopaedia article out of press releases. Demiurge 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I agree with MaxSem, the article could be rewritten to include better sources. Davidpdx 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CORP is a faulty guideline (among the worst, in my opinion) that permits elimination of a potentially great source of neutral information about the many businesses that impact thousands of lives every day. Coming anywhere near passing WP:CORP should be a guaranteed keep, but failing it really isn't a decent reason to delete articles since impact of even average corporations is far greater than an average pop band on the charts, and that's why it's such a terrible guideline. A partial rewrite of this article is in order. Unfocused 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP, which, like it or not, is where we should probably start. My own rule of thumb is that "existence is not notability". We're not a directory, so the fact that this company exists is not enough: for a corporation to be notable it must be doing something more than simply being in business - it has to be notable for actively doing something. If the firm were doing something new and important I'd say keep, but it's not: it's simply a company with some funding and a business plan, which is not enough. WMMartin 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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.