Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDMK

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The result was nomination withdrawn clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HDMK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main claim to notability in the article is the firm's relationship with Chad Kolton. Per WP:COMPANY, notability for companies can't be inherited from people related to them, and there is nothing to suggest this company is notable on its own. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as there's information to suggest notability. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I see nothing in the article to that effect. It is the references which attest to the notability. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that in reference to the fact that the article is almost entirely a mention of people involved in it, implying that it's notable because of them. That's not enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY, which requires more than being associated with notable (or semi-notable) people. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point was to explain where the initials H, D, M, and K originally came from. The firm does still make the news in Washington on a semi-regular basis.[1] Frankly, I only stubbed this out because they were related to the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund back during the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. It's not like they just bake cookies or anything, and I'm sure they'll get up to some sort of hijinks during the election cycle in 2016. If not, I'm happy to revisit this a couple of years from now. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well that makes sense. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this AfD for now. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (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.