Talk:Fleet Support Limited

Untitled
Reasons to keep:
 * I am working on the BAE Systems article with the aim of a FAC. One of the objections was the amount of red links on the page. This is one of them.
 * The granting of the contract to FSL to maintain the Royal Navy fleet is an example of the commercialisation of many defence services - a major topic.
 * The tag that was added says "advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." -- even if I did agree with that, the average reader doesn't own a frigate or ferry for which this company could provide a service. Also it contains the bare facts, I don't see how a substantial re-write is required or possible. Mark83 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the work the company undertakes is significant, for example the refit of front line warships. As such it is good to be able to describe this in the articles and link to this article to describe how and why this commercial company came to undertake this work. Mark83 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the request for deletion. You might want to take a look at Notability_%28companies_and_corporations%29... --Kms 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding notability. I want to address the criteria from Notability (companies and corporations)
 * "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself" -- Yes it has been. It received considerable press attention when repairing the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Nottingham (D91) which suffered a 100ft rip in its hull. It has also been the subject of newspaper speculation regarding the future of the UK naval sector (BAE and VT - the parents of the company are being pressured by the MoD to merge their naval businesses so that this merged businesses can be more economically viable in the long run). These are two specific issues, a more general example is Lloyd's List October 5, 1999 "Shiprepair: Naval Technology: FSL learns from warship alterations" which discusses how the company's MOD work is helping it in the commercial sector. All of these stories do not fall under the press release/company advertising or trivial caveats of WP:Notability.
 * "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications." -- It is part of "The Major Companies Database" published by Graham & Whiteside Ltd. Personally I do not know if that qualifies as one of the "ranking indices of important companies"
 * "The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.4 Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." -- No. It is a privately held company, however its status is that of a "large unquoted company" and is owned by two publicly traded companies which themselves are part of stock market indicies (VT in the FTSE 250 and BAE in the FTSE100).Mark83 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fleetsupportlimited logo.png
Image:Fleetsupportlimited logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)