Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.


 * 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. Trebor 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. It has previously been tagged as blatant advertising, but it isn't completely promotional or non-notable. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ball article has over 40 links to it, 95% of which are aerospace industry related links. Ball has and still is producting satellites for NASA and DOD. The first 3 paragraphs are not written well for Wikipedia. Of the many contributors to this article, one of them should step forward for the re-write...maybe the person who mark this article for deletion could take the first cut, too. The impact of deleting this article would leave those links as unreferenced/not cited properly/stubbed articles.
 * Vote to KEEP article -- I volunteer to take the first cut at its re-write.

I will look at other aerospace contractor articles and use some of the styles of writing found in them and start there. Respectfully submitted,LanceBarber 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update -- if I read the history file correctly, an unregistered editor, IP 67.101.163.82, marked the article for deletion. Wonder why this person does not want to share their identity.LanceBarber 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Thank you" to User:Fleminra for jumping in a doing the first cut. LanceBarber 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, company is notable for its prominent work in aerospace. (As a defense contractor it is definitely second-tier.) Article should be better referenced, but that's a cleanup issue. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very appropriate article and at this point free from commercial spam. DGG 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The company seems notable. It's hard to claim that a top-100 defence contractor isn't worth an article. The article itself could certainly be better. There might even be an argument that a single article on the parent Ball Corp. would be enough, if there is not enough third-party coverage of the defence contractor's activities. Most likely it will be possible to dig up enough info, though. EdJohnston 03:25, 17 May 2007 (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.