Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ackerman global enterprises

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. One significant author has requested deletion - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman global enterprises

Not notable. Unsourced; claims to be so secret that their products and industry sector are "confidential". Huh? Only Google hits are WIkipedia and the company's own webpage. Possible hoax/overactive imagination. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, the company is secretive because they deal with wealthy clientele. The company has just created a website recently for these clientele to access billing online - a new feature. One of the services clienetele have recieved in the past is the AGE Awards for financial purposes. If Ackerman Global Enterprises is going public with a website, it would make sense for people who wander on to the website to have a source that can explain (to some extent) what the company does. However, most of the services are still secretive. A7 also is so vague that it can be used to delete any article on no basis. Is that not on the eye of the beholder? --Efieryman898 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No claim to natability, not sure really if the article should be retained. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 04:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to tag the article A7 a while back but since it was created with the hangon tag and a talk page note, I just left it. If the company is so secretive that no reliable source can write about them, then we should indulge them and not have a page either. Looking at the website, I believe this should qualify for a G3 too. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @260 · 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @260 · 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we assume good faith on the part of the article creator, we are presented with a very strange situation. A whois search shows the article creator has a strong connection to the company. Yet he has twice created an article on a company so secretive and so publicity shy that the only google hit is their own website, and they get zero gnews hits. It's perplexing why a company so adverse to publicity would be so anxious for a Wikipedia page. Still, even with that unresolved, the fact remains that this company fails WP:Notability by a mile.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect a hoax. They're business model is "confidential", and even what they do is apparently secret. But for the first time this year, they will be awarding a "prestigious" award to someone, publicly, for God alone knows what --- that too is apparently a secret: Although much of their business model is kept secret due to company policy, 2009 marks the first year that the esteemed and prestigious Ackerman Global Enterprises “AGE Award” will be disclosed publicly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. All of the links go to "loginerror.html", you can see PHP in the html source (and in the URL bar), and they left links to "free templates" in the footer. Seems like a hoax somebody who doesn't know html/php. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the website has loginerror is because we are not finished working on it. The footer that says free templates was required by the designer. I will work on this article more and talk to company reps to find out what they can say. Its not a hoax, this is a company that worked with a few individuals and now wants to expand their base. No one writes articles about companies that just came into public existence. The reason we are eager to get a wikipedia page is we (the company) are eager to get more clientele asking about our services. (Not meant to advertise, but rather explain what we are.) --Efieryman898 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) --Efieryman898 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a source of advertising. Sorry Man but wrong use for the wiki. Now fully support Delete in light of the intended use for the article. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help guys. I will take a while to work on this more and make sure I quote credible sources. Also, I will use wikipedia for what it is inteded to be used for. I fully support the delete. Thanks, E--Efieryman898 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 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.