Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Ink-Jet
The WSJ source mentions IIJ several times but we really need at least one source that covers IIJ ''directly'' and in ''significant detail''. The WSJ source does neither of these things. If the IP above can supply the 2004 WSJ article he/she mentions where IIJ was featured on the front page of the Business section, that sounds like a start and might change my vote. Failing that, and per , for now this is a delete. I'd also caution the IP from similar massive outpourings of text in this discussion, as they are almost inevitably counterproductive (a common response: "if you need that many words to explain why it's notable, it's probably not notable"). This is to say nothing of the manner in which you devote so much time to saying how "appalled" you are at the existence of this AFD and the "power-tripping" of OhNoItsJamie, which is also very counterproductive and, in addition, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Best
— User:Ginsengbomb, 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BURDEN (Wikipedia:Verifiability)