Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BDR Thermea


 * 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  Keep. No arguments for delete after User:Fattyjwoods followed through with "boy does this need a rewrite" and added sourced content. Mandsford 20:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

BDR Thermea

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I originally speedy tagged this as spam but an admin removed the tag (the original editor didn't weigh in with a "hangon" template as is normal - an external admin decided to create more work here by proactively removing the speedy tag). Anyway, absolutely no attempt to establish notability. Article is a single line saying "hey, we exist." Original posting didn't even spell "dosmetic" correctly. In my opinion, if the original editor was going to expand this, the "hangon" tag would have been fine. But admin action means we all have to go the extra mile and do an AfD on this. Quartermaster (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As the admin said, this page is not unambiguously promotional. Research shows that this firm is notable enough with quite a large amount of sources available. But boy does this need a rewrite if this article is to stay. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem understanding keeping this on procedural grounds. I've had occasions where a speedy tag or an AfD has nudged an editor (or other editors) into expending some effort to save an article (which I think is the point of doing both of those things). I've expended effort on my own to save articles. However, in lieu of no improvement, I'd rather see these sort of things nipped in the bud. I think lots of editors let procedure get in the way of doing the obvious. I don't lose sleep over these things surviving, but the cumulative effect over many years is lots of dross in the wikipedia-sphere. Also, in my opinion, a single line article proclaiming the existence of an article a company is unambiguously promotional. In lieu of any justification, what else can it be? It's a Billboard. A sign on the side of the highway. Living in Missouri I'm probably over-sensitized to highway sign noise. --Quartermaster (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact after some in-depth researching I found heaps of good reliable sources for this article, and have added it in. All it needs is some work. So Keep.  Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Highly notable company, cited accordingly. Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Note: I was the admin who declined the speedy yesterday. A merger of a notable company is a good indicator of possible notability (which is why I didn't just delete it under A7). I'm glad somebody else found the time to dig up references (kudos to Fattyjwoods). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:COMPANY. Guoguo12  --Talk--   16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable company. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.