Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecofys


 * 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. POV issues in corporate articles (i.e. WP:SPAM) are an independent reason for deletion even for a notable company. Eluchil404 08:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecofys

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Possibly notable, but in its current form - unreferenced and horribly POV - undeserving of retention. Mainly the work of a user most of whose contributions are on this article and its images, which incidentally also smack of advertising. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertising. Renee 02:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, this reads like an ad and has no sources. meshach 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Potentially acceptable article, but needs a complete rewrite. Silverchemist 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm not familiar with wp:corp and I usually don't participate in such afd's unless it's a blatant keep or delete, but judging from what google smells it seems notable. I've tagged it ad--victor falk 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Bad article on notable subject.--Bedivere 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's apparently notable (50K + hits, international company, sources are out there), and other than being unencyclopedic in tone (though calling it advertising or spam is stretching the concept), something for which we ought not delete, it's well written.  Leave as is but keep clean-up tags.  Wikidemo 13:57, 20 October 2007 (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.