== Wanderful and Common Outcomes == 

 I consider your comments at Talk:Wanderful Media regarding WP:Common outcomes to be, at best, deceitful, and, at worst, openly disruptive. You added those lines to Common Outcomes less than 30 minutes before you made the comment on the article's talk page...plus, the statement is blatantly false. The 350 employees statement was the opinion of one Wikipedian. It is not supported, as far as I know, by general practices at AfD. Had I closed that AfD, I would have literally ignored Vegaswikipedian's comment, because it has no basis in policies or guidelines. We measure notability of companies per WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. Part of the point behind these policies is that they do not have arbitrary numerical standards of any type, positive or negative. A company of 2 people could easily meet WP:GNG, and a company of 500 easily might not. We care about what reliable sources think. But my real point in commenting here is that it is unacceptable to make a claim to a new user about our rules, then point them to an essay (which is helpful but not definitive) that you yourself had changed only minutes before.    
 :And now it's definitely time for you to go to the essay's talk page before attempting more changes. You can't push the burden on to other editors; since you're changing what is practically a guideline, the burden is on you to show that the change is necessary.    
 ::Hi Qwyrxian. Thank you for all your comments; I read them all and they all make sense. I have now finally replied on the essay's talk page. As for your comments above: I suspect it is true that most 350-employee companies fail AfD because suitable sources don't exist, although of course there are many exceptions. I hear your point above about not pointing a new user to an essay I just edited. You are right: it was wrong and unhelpful. Do you think it would be better that I should apologize to the new user, or better to do nothing? Sorry, my custom is generally not to watchlist other users' talk pages. If you reply, I request that you please kindly move the conversation back to my talk page; if I reply to you, I can do the same. If you really are against doing so,  is another alternative. Cheers, —   

 == One paragraph??? == 

 Seriously, I'm beginning to believe that you are being intentionally disruptive. There is not now nor has there ever been any sort of rule saying a reference must discuss a subject for more than a paragraph. Yes, it's true that a passing mention doesn't establish notability, but it most certainly can be a reference for a specific piece of information. We don't remove all sources that don't establish notability. Do you really not understand our rules, or are you just so adamant that you don't like some businesses that you're bending the rules to try to justify deletion?    
 :I definitely don't like the Wanderful Media article, since a stubborn COI editor has now created it twice. But I hope to get it deleted without bending any rules. Where did I get "at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more"? To see the answer, please visit WP:AFCR. I know: it's not even a guideline. Anyway, please visit it. Scroll down to "Expand this box to learn about notability and verifiability". Click "show". There, they claim that SIGCOV is "at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more". I think what they're trying to imply is that a subject is only notable if there are several references which each spend least one lengthy paragraph discussing the subject. This seems like a sensible rule of thumb which I suspect many AfD contributors agree with, though I know it's not a guideline or even close to a guideline. Cheers, —