Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The random joe

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

The random joe[edit]

About therandomjoe.com, which seems an unremarkable site of an unremarkable web development company.

(A distinctly mediocre one, actually: while its main page boasts All our site [sic] are W3C Approved and Certified with todays' [sic] Compatibility Standards, submitting that very page to W3C's HTML validator shows bathetic failure, as the page lacks a doctype declaration, contains Microsoft proprietary attributes, and worse. Duh!)

Not notable. Hoary 05:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. LostCluster 06:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete mlk ^✉^♬ 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 06:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am the owner and operator of The Random Joe, and I would like it to be noted that we are currently going through a redesign at the moment. The current page, which doesnt no validate, does work in most browers, but is temporary. It is only a template while the new site is being made... btw, I would NEVER use frontpage if that is what you mean... added at 07:57, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75; oddly, the same IP number that created the article in the first place
Delete - Even if this is true, Mr. Random Joe, I cannot see how this apparently larval-stage web development company is notable. – Clockwork Soul 08:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 08:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Me Again, My name is Saidan Ryuuza, not Mr. Random Joe for one... and my company is not larval-stage. You name me a Web Design company off the top of your head... i can name off some hosting companies, and a few Designers, only because I am in the business. My point being that you should not remove the entry for my site on the basis of revenue, or how many employees i have ...added at 08:34, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75
- I hereby name Webcredible off the top of my head, although I'm not in the business. I'd also name Vivtek as a fine company that has no employees at all (a one-man outfit). I don't rush to say that either is Wikipedia-worthy, though. Hosting services? pair.com for one. What's your point? Or rather, how is it that your company is outstandingly notable among web design companies and thus Wikipedia-worthy? Hoary 13:27, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Delete: Advertising, which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Advertising Tompagenet 14:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saidan, you should look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the items on Wikipedia not being "a general knowledge base," and Wikipedia articles not being "vehicles for advertising and self-promotion" or a "Yellow Pages or a resource for conducting business." Samaritan 19:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 23:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad for website so minor it doesn't even have an Alexa rating. —Stormie 00:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn ad. Alexa is not a reliable indicator of traffic, nor of notability. Wyss 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saidan: It's not so much the number of employees you have or the quality of your work, but rather lack of notability. We have to delete lots of articles about small businesses for that reason. "therandomjoe" gets seven unique Google hits, three from www.therandomjoe.com and four from forum posts. Everyone else: The article's author seems nice enough, and he's come here to defend his article without flaming us (which is rare), so please don't bite the newcomer. =o) - Eisnel 20:10, 7 Jan 2005 (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.