Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyesol


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dyesol

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't see what makes that this company notable. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give reasons why it wouldn't be? - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a BIG mistake. Dyesol is a vital company in the thin film field, specially in the dye-sensitized solar cells and the way to low cost solar cells. So strong maintain and quickly delete the tag.--Mac (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As a new technology related article of growing importance it has relevance & notability. There is an issue with all small firms articles been seen as adverts, but editing solves that not AfD.  If we go back to the history of some of the biggest articles they would probably have warranted snuffing out under some current views before they could grow into informative articles. It appears some of these articles are best left in the back waters as once you try to clean them up they then attract AfD tags. But if nobody knows their here how can they be linked to in relavent articles. Let the Encyclopedia grow dont cut off the green shoots, just prune the blatatant use of ad prose and excessive web links of some articles. I feel reluctant to start company related articles as so many get speedy delete, yet we get articles for things like streams and Creeks, villages of 1/2 a dozen house created en mass as stubs instead of being part of a related article, and split out once bigger than a couple of paragraphs. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is mostly advertising. The first source listed is for a completely different company. Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP.  TN ‑  X   - Man  14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

MGM: No, I can't prove a negative. The technologies Dyesol are involved with are notable (and they have articles) but I just can't see any reason to believe that Dyesol itself is notable. In the three sentences that are actually about the company, all that's said is that Dyesol makes DSCs and DSC production equipment, and they're opening new factories soon. I can't even see an assertion of notability in there.

BulldozerD11: We're not cutting off the green shoots here, we're pruning an article about a non-notable company (in my view). The articles you talk about, if they had no valid content, should have been deleted, and then recreated with decent content. Green shoots should be allowed to grow, but bindweed needs to be removed so that green shoots can be planted in its place. I don't think that's the case here, though.--Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. What makes this company notable is significant coverage in reliable sources, which can easily be found with a Google News Archive search . I've put references to the first two of those sources in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I should have researched more carefully before nominating.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 17:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2008 (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.