Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecymru

Ecymru listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 18 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Ad. Could've been a speedy, I guess, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Ambivalenthysteria 11:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks non-notable. Delete probable ad. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Potential for a good article here. C'mon, guys - convince me past a couple of sentences why you're worth keeping. Denni &#9775; 01:55, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
 * I agree with Denni: I simply can't tell how significant it is. It has the potential, but I'm forced to vote on the article as it is, and not what it can become, and have to vote delete. Geogre 14:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with this. Yes, it's stubby but consists of facts about a real entity.  Keep.  Jgm 17:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I won't speak for anyone else, but this is back to voting on what it is vs. what it could be. The article has to establish some notability to stay.  I think it probably could be good, but a stub this small that doesn't give the reader a sense of the context of the information is not, I think, going to answer questions of researchers.  Will it get added to by a knowledgeable contributor? Sure, but having no article would be not much worse in a case like this.  I want to see this article succeed.  If you have an indication of notability and think the article should go to Clean Up, please indicate.  Geogre 21:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule or guideline that supports the particular voting criteria you use (this is a serious question). If the article, current usefulness aside, is doing no active harm and has the potential to grow into something useful, I default to keep.  As to notability, this company's mission statement seems unique enough to clear that hurdle.  Jgm 00:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)