Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publitas
I have reviewed it. What more do we want? We want references to show notability. There is absolutely no indication of any notability, other than a list of companies. Supplying to a notable company does not make you notable per se. I would presume that those companies also purchase loo rolls, paperclips, envelopes, tea bags, and swivel seats. Are the purveyors of those items made notable by their supply to these companies? I think not. What we really prefer is an article not written by someone from the company - see  our policy on conflict of interest. See  for an indication of the type of references you will have to supply, and  for the general notability guidelines. These are the policies for the English language Wikipedia. I have edited on several different languages and have found the insistence on references here to be rather less in other languages. (I've gone to other Wikipedias to find references and been mostly unsuccessful.) I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time in New Accounts monitoring and here in AfD. If I'd seen this article first, I'd have put a speedy deletion tag on it, on the grounds of non-notability. If you can supply the references - and it is up to you under  - do so. If not, it'll probably go from this language. What the Dutch speakers do over there is their own business
— User:Peridon, 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:BURDEN (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)