Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDIndustries
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. Simply put, it's been the subject of non-trivial works. Though I agree it needs a cleanup. -- Steel 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP. Valrith 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep According to this website, it is one of the top 100 best companies to work for. It also won the respect Innovation award in 2003 according to this website. A google search also shows quite a number of hits for this company, so there is no problems of meeting WP:V, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. Incidently, WP:CORP is a guideline, so the question one must ask is which is the more important criteria here? Is it WP:CORP or WP:V? Lastly, this article meets WP:CORP! According to this website, it is named number five on Fortune Magazine's List of "100 Best Companies to Work for in America". --Siva1979Talk to me 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which causes this company to pass WP:CORP; I don't see "voted as a great company to work for" among the criteria. Valrith 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Sourced, verified, Fortune 500, "5th best company to work for", pretty much passes WP:CORP with flying colours. ColourBurst 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Clean Up. Apart from the sources cited above, a Google News Archive comes up with 264 results including an article in the Wall Street Journal see [1]
Needs a clean up though. Capitalistroadster 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean Up at least "our" from the article, it seems the article is written by employee, someone should clean up if the company meets the WP:CORP creteria (just comment). --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 10 September 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.