Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedford Biofuels


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  09:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bedford Biofuels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company has been ordered to cease trading/raising capital by the relevant securities regulatory authority, and has declared bankruptcy. Given that their plans to develop their business in Africa never really began, I don't think this article needs to stay around. If it is preferred that it stay, I will clean it up a bit to reflect the cease trade and bankruptcy, but I don't think it's notable. FinnHK (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Under+fire+from+some+investors+Alberta+Securities+Commission+boss+defends+actions+weeding+fraud/8019949/story.html and http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/bedford-biofuels-kenyan-plantation-in.html FinnHK (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. References seem to be sufficient. Perhaps more could be found in Kenyan media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the company seems to be notable, however, the section "Bedford activities in Kenya" seems to me slightly promotional. @nominator: the fact that a company went bankrupt has little to do with its notability. But you are right, the article should be updated to reflect the current state. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability is not temporary so, if the company received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources while it was trading, its bankruptcy doesn't stop it being notable. Wikipedia has many, many articles on defunct companies. Dricherby (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alright, I've made some edits to reflect the current status of the company. I'd still argue for deletion, based on the company not being notable.  There's no indication any crop was ever produced from the small number of trees planted, and most of the investor money seems to be gone. FinnHK (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FinnHK, notability has nothing to do with whether crop was ever produced from any trees or whether a company provided a good return on investment. It is solely about whether the company received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Nothing else. Dricherby (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, go ahead and take a look at the page following my edits, and tell me if you think it's notable. I've used all the sources I can find. FinnHK (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 24 June 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.