Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condor Earth Technologies Inc.


 * 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 of the debate was speedy delete as copyright violation. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Condor Earth Technologies Inc.
Advert for minor non-notable engineering company Calton | Talk 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, 990 ghits &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertisement and non-notable; fails WP:CORP -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, it does look like an advertisment you might see everyday on the tube. Funnybunny 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, minus the tube and inserting something less foreign-y - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete big ugly advert --Luccent 10:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ad, vanispamcruftisment, nn. --Ter e nce Ong 10:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity, advert Celcius 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excavate this as above. ProhibitOnions 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I feel that this topic having 900 google hits is notable enough. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, 99% copyvio from their website, only difference being "our" changed to "their". &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per "What's in, What's out-companies": It is a large company, well-established and is highly notable in it's field internationally. Wording is currently being re-worked to sound less like an ad.--63.204.90.126 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you referring to? --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As Kimchi.sg pointed out, it's a copyvio. Other then that, I would agree with Siva1979; It seems like this is large enough to get an article, assuming that it is less of an ad. -Haon 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Engineering and surveying firm with 75 (per infoUSA.com business directory) or 110 (per article) employees. Probably involved in site assessments for buildings, landfills, and so on as is usual with this type of firm.  No assertion why this particular firm is notable compared to many many other firms engaged in similar business. Thatcher131 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- Kinu t /c  07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Does meet WP:CORP in that it meets notablility criterea of having been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."63.204.90.126 19:33, 31 March 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.