Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell Integrator


 * 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. And I will salt it as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bell Integrator

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unremarkable/un-notable organisation. Doesn't even make any claim to notability. Has been speedied a number of times but people keep recreating it. Recent speedy undone on request. Bringing it here now. AlanS (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete : Promotional, most of the results seems to have been listed by the employees of this organization.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons I've nominated it for speedy in the past and it's gotten speedied for that reason. That and being completely unremarkable. Keeps on coming back though. AlanS (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not cite any source apart from the company's own website; in my view, this alone is enough for deletion under WP:GNG. I do note that an earlier version of the article had a number of citations, but most of those were to the company website or to press releases, and the rest were to other company's websites that merely identified Bell Integrator as a "partner" (i.e., supplier) to the other company, without any other information about the business. None of these provide the kind of "significant coverage" required by the guideline. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, open to salting: no evidence of notability. Cannot find support in English language RS and the Russian Google hits look like press releases (but I don't know that because I don't know Russian). BethNaught (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article reads like a press release, has been deleted before, and is not substantiated by reliable sources.  Andrew327 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt as no evidence of any notability, Plus it's been recreated 3 times - Enough is enough. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please slow down. Not currently citing sources is not proof it isn't notable. Not finding any sources is proof. Rejecting Russian sources one cannot read because of what they look like is not all that rational, since we do accept sources in any language. A company of this size in this field might possibly have decent sources. Earlier version were promotional; this is not.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when an article says a company is based in California, I'd expect to find at least some mention of it in the proprietary business databases I've searched or at very least the official California business database. Clearly, something isn't right, and I'm not comfortable with this article being on Wikipedia.  I'd support userfying it pending more sources, and I don't see an immediate need to salt it, but the article has to be removed from article space ASAP.  Andrew327 07:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The author, who I assume is acting in good faith, has tried to create this article three times now. If there were reliable sources to be found, they have had plenty of opportunity to find them (and, if the article is deleted and they subsequently find reliable sources, they will be free to recreate it). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that even if the result of this nomination is a delete that they will attempt to create the page again, regardless of any new reliable sources or not. AlanS (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And if they do have sufficient sources and write in NPOV fashion, it will be accepted, no matter how many tries it may take, tho if it is salted, they will need to go to deletion review to ask. 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Promotional or not, it is based on the style of writing. Exactly one can write a non-notable subject in non-promotional way.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It reads like a prospectus to me. Which might not be a flashing clip on your TV, but all the same is still an inducement to buy shares in the company or trade with the company. The only thing this article offers in the way of notability is the companies it trades with. Trading with, or having partners that are, notable companies does not make you notable! AlanS (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Any article on any organization or company or performer or writer or place or politician, or cause that does anything good will to some extent be promotional, ad providing the information will have the effect of encouraging people to participate, donate, purchase,   view,   read ,   visit , or vote, or sympathize  This isn ot what we mean by a promotional article, or we could write about nothing. 'As a ccnsequence, we pay no attention to intent, which we cannot always judge. We pay attention to the style and the facts that are presented. Facts that could only be directed at a prospective client etc ,are promotional; facts that provide information relevant to the general public who may have heard of the subject are not (the classic example for a company is detailed pricing information; for a school, it is details of the application procedure)  The selective presentation of positive facts is promotional; the use of biased language is promotional; the use of adjective of praise is promotional. The presentation of basic plain facts is not: it's NPOV writing. What the reader makes of the NPOV presentation of the material is up to the reader.  DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Plain promo The Banner talk 16:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note user Bellintegrator has previously been blocked indefinitely for being a spam account. AlanS (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:24, 13 July 2014 (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.