Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurion Power Systems


 * 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 --Haemo 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurion Power Systems

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N. Originally tagged CSD/A7: no assertion of notability. Article was created by, but CSD tag was removed by. slakr \ talk / 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was non-specific (and a little acronym-heavy). It fails notability requirements in that it not only does not assert notability and it fails notability for companies and organizations. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete but bundle with above AfD. Or link to this from the other etc. This looks like a copy of Invision Power Systems, the makers of IPB. Anti  V  Man  04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article doesn't show the company's notable. I don't see how it could either, given that the setup is said to be run mostly by a single person. I concur with deletion. Computer not responding 05:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean Invision Power Services not Invision Power Systems. Fancy using 'Systems'. Must be hooked on Futurion Power Systems eh?--Nick Tompson 06:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Nick Tompson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hmm… you edited the article to remove the "one-man show" statement, but around here it seems that folks demand "sources" to back up what you say, and they will not simply take your word for it. Computer not responding 07:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem ;) Ill add a source right now. --Nick Tompson 07:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Nick Tompson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Hmm... now it's also starting to read like blatant advertising. -- slakr \ talk / 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment. Is there anything that can be done to re-word so it doesn't sound like advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Tompson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am D4rkkn1gh7 and i wrote this article. If you could please explain what you mean by advertising as I have clearly gone to many other wiki pages that ARE advertising! I am wanting to sort this out as I am a close keen supporter of the Futurion Power Systems group and their work. Being a fellow Austraian i thought i would help in out to post this article and send it to him to view.. I come back now and this is what i see.. Please get back to me regarding this matter. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment i do have to say also, slakr, the link you pointed to, 11: Blatant advertising, contains this:"...Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."It is an article about a company....therefore is doesnt qualify for that criterion........
 * Reply to Comment Yes as the Author of Futurion Power Systems what I'm just wondering else am I supposed to name the article... A wonderful business with a lot to offer in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * but that's the point "much to offer in the future." we're not a place for your advertising or pubic relations, when you do attain success--as you say, in the future, then it will be time for an article. DGG (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ...its not an advertising article. there is nothing wrong with this article at all anymore, unless someone can pull another rabbit out of their hat. the author and i have been working on this article trying to make it less "advertisement" like, and providing sources where needed. every single thing in the article is on the website for futurion power. if it's on the website, then that is a good source.--Nick Tompson 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the sources are from the company itself, and I wasn't able to find the sources by googling that would show that this company is currently notable.  If it becomes notable in the future, then someone who is not directly affiliated with the company can create a version with better sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a smart cookie. The sources are from the company. That makes them valid. Who cares what google can throw up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Tompson (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you read the notability criteria more closely? You appear not to understand Wikipedia's requirements thoroughly, and if you are more familiar with them, you'll be better able to explain how this company meets them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please also consider reviewing our guideline on conflicts of interest. -- slakr \ talk / 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability needs to be established by outside sources, not the company's own website. Clear conflict of interest problems as well. shoeofdeath 05:21, 9 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.