Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borouge


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Borouge
Non-notable company. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari  03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; This partnership may well meet WP:CORP &mdash; see this 2003 business intelligence report. However, as written, the article is purely an advertisement, without encyclopedic value. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it does appear that this may indeed be a rather large company, so it may meet WP:CORP. The reason the article reads like advertising is because it is one huge copyright violation with most of it appearing to be lifted straight from their press releases.  The article needs significant cleanup if kept. -- Whpq 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a place for corporate press releases. May well be a notable company but I cannot face cleaning this one up to save it. They can come back if an encyclopaedic page is produced. BlueValour 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per BlueValour's rational.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Copyvio from which says "Registered users of PressReleaseFinder are free to use the press releases in their publications. All other uses of the information provided by PressReleaseFinder is prohibited without written consent."    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. SynergeticMaggot 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but definatley notable enough to have a properly written article about. Newnam(talk) 04:13, 31 July 2006 (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.