Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big White Tiger LLC


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Big White Tiger LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article looks like an attempt at public relations because it was created by a single purpose account, and remains very thinly sourced. Checking the sources that are online, I do not see coverage by multiple independent sources as required by our corporation/organization notability guideline. Passing mentions and minor blubs are not sufficient to write more than a very short stub. Wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The standard WP:CORP requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The cited on-line ref Small Scale, Big Impact on Biodiesel magazine alone seems to provide this as it is a detailed profile on this company and not just "Trivial or incidental coverage". - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the plural--which we often take to mean "more than two." I agree that that coverage is not trivial, but that magazine is not exactly the New York Times. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. One magazine article does not sufficiently establish notability, and I could find nothing else. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I came here after seeing the ANI discussion at WP:ANI. Though we would hesitate to delete an article merely because of an off-wiki legal dispute, the fact that the company seems not to be continuing in business removes most of the reason for having an article on them. They did not (so far as I can tell) make such a large impact that it's worth keeping an article on them as a former company. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does seem to be slightly advertising, but I believe that could easily be fixed ("They also provide a wide range of fuel additive products that increase gas mileage, help keep engines clean, and/or improve diesel engine efficiency. Additionally, Big White Tiger sells biodiesel supplies and small-scale production equipment"). And it also has reliable secondary sources. Endofskull (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That remains to be seen. There is one article (really, a few paragraphs in an article with a lot of tidbits) from a reliable source, and then the article from Biodiesel Magazine, the status of which is unclear. I'm saddened that I, as a "delete" voter, have done more work on cleaning up the article and providing sources than the "keep"ers. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The company seems notable enough. Could be expanded and more sources added, but overall it should be kept.-- Navy Blue84  17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add those sources--reliable ones, please. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unable to find multiple RS providing Significant coverage. Thus Failing WP:CORP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per RA. Fails WP:CORP. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Multiple reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage are generally expected so to meet WP:GNG and I don't see these. WP:CORP says that we should also consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; I cannot see that this company has had any such significant or demonstrable impact. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, questionable notability and too much time would need to be invested in unpicking the legal issues if kept. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not yet adequately established. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing special or notable about them, just another small company. Even the Biodiesel Magazine quote in the article itself says that White Tiger is "a niche player in the biodiesel industry". The silent gnome (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Hey look. No coverage found in reliable sources. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was suspicious because they wanted to be deleted, but looking around, they're way under the WP:CORP notability threshold. Hoovers says they had revenue of $0.1 milllion.  Virginia's State Corporation Commission shows them as established in 2006 and cancelled in 2010.  Google News archives have nothing. The address the State Corporation Commission has comes up in Google Maps as a house in a subdivision.  Big White Tiger's one moment of fame was when they installed (not developed, just bought and installed) a commercial $4000 unit capable of processing 40 gallons of kitchen grease into fuel. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP, references do not amount to the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Actually it does not fail WP:CORP, notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 20 November 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.