Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOFA International


 * 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   delete.  Wifione  Message 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

BOFA International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This Organisation Does not Cite Notable References. All of the references are coming through PR Resources. VI-007 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't know what to make of this company. Based on press releases and similar non-reliable sources, this company seems to be known within its industry., but I wasn't able to find independent,  reliable, secondary sources that would demonstrate its notability beyond announcements of the Queen's award.  As I said on the article's talk page, just getting the award doesn't meet WP:GNG, but it's an indicator that this company probably has been mentioned in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources.  I just haven't found any yet.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: David Cornell's patented inventions are well known by Specialist Safety Practitioners the world over. The fact that the article is specialist is not reason alone for deletion. I note that this is well documented in press releases all over the internet. This page is of specialist encylopedic interest and simply needs more work and better cited sources. With time I would imagine the patents would also be added.Safetyprofessional (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Comment:  added by davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  at 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) for clarity.
 * Please provide citations from reliable sources that indicate that it is the company, not the items, that are notable OR that the company is notable within the industry. I looked and found some industry awards listed on the company's web site, but it's unclear if these awards are truly coveted and competitive like the Queen's award presumably is, so I didn't add them to the page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be assured that the content that we have seen today is in our opinion non promotional, accurate and verifyable. Many Thanks. BOFA International (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BOFA International (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Potential keep -- I would have thought that a company with a revenue of £12M was notable, though I am not clear if this is turnover or profit. I would have hoped to find a guideline on a threshold in WP:CORP.  The article certainly needs improvement and better sourcing.  If ther company is exploiting patents, that is worth mentioning.  Unfortuately, since many industrial companies are marketing their products to other companies or wholesalers, they may fail to be in the public eye and hence appear not to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Potential keep -- I think that in the current economic climate any successful UK manufacturing company should be applauded and are definitely worthy of their own Wiki page !...PaulD1963 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — User:PaulD1963 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 'Delete' Most of the above "potential keep" statements are not WP policy--they amount to either "I know it's notable". or "it ought to be notable" . The purpose of WP is notto help the manufacturing climate in the UK or elsewhere; £12 million  is either turnover or profit is not in the least notable in it's own right--there is no such standard, (but informally I thin k of it as $100 million receipts, or $1 billion holdings--above those I expect to find references, below it it's less likely) Whether the author (or the company) thinks the content is informative not promotional is not the standard, but rather what we think here at WP. Hoowever, a company that makes notable products is notable, and in fact that''s usually how companies become notable. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment:DGG simply shouting POLICY at a potential manufacturer of very notable products of interest is hardly helpful! Please look and see how much is actually available on WP on the essential subject of Fume Extraction. (Maybe it should be under that heading?) I think flashing the cash won't even be enough to get an article particularly noticed on WP either. This is a very small and innocent article that actually informs the reader about a rare control product manufacturer helping to prevent Occupational Asthma. There are very few UK manufacturing companies doing well around these days, is that notable in itself? I don't know... perhaps you could elaborate? Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing what you just said - We should throw out Wikipedia policy because I like the article and I think it's good! Please try to stick to policy when discussing deletion - it's all that matters. ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per davidwr and DGG. There are a number of sources that show the company exists, but nothing at all that indicates its known in the wider world outside of the industry for filters. To answer a few other questions :
 * "I note that this is well documented in press releases all over the internet" - which are not independent sources and can never be used to establish notability of a subject. Press release feeds print anything without making any editorial judgement on what's printed there. Your press release can say it's the greatest company in the world, but unless a third party with good standing for fact checking also says so, it can't go in.
 * "This page is of specialist encyclopedic interest" - in other words, unsuitable for a general purpose encyclopedia
 * "I would have thought that a company with a revenue of £12M was notable" - not really, no. Many medium sized companies have turnover of that size. Youtube was valued at $1.65 billion when sold to Google.
 * "This is a very small and innocent article" - please read WP:PLEASEDONT
 * "DGG simply shouting POLICY" - please comment on the content, not the contributor, and he didn't. He told you what specific policies meant the article is not suitable on Wikipedia. Please read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. They will explain what you need to do to get the article kept, if it's possible. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - mainly per DGG ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHEilds Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) So a page like SHEilds one is okay? * Comment added by davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  at 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) assuming it was to be a stand-alone comment. It's hard to tell if this was supposed to be a new comment or a reply (use *: to reply to a top-level bullet-item), Safetyprofessional is encouraged to fix it and remove my "small" comment if I did it wrong. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Each page is considered in its own right. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete read the policy through but still can't see a violation. None the less it has clearly caused some kind of offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetyprofessional (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As things stand, I am neither seeing nor finding sufficient coverage that would demonstrate notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to reverse that view if someone can locate references (including from specialist press) to demonstrate that, though. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2013 (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.