Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global H2O Resources


 * 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. BJ Talk 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Global H2O Resources

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

Article about a company that shows no evidence of meeting our criteria for notability of companies Gwernol 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only incidental coverage in a Japanese newspaper as far as media, google provides some press releases. Search on Lexis brought one incidental mention in a law review article. Nowhere close to criteria which requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Ray Yang (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are 19 Google Books listings for the company under its previous name, Global Water Corporation. Proof that it was previously known under this name can be found in this SEC filing. Gr1st (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now. I've added one of Gr1st's sources to the article. Seems to establish its notability. Still just a very stubby stub, of course. AndyJones (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find out why there's very little information on the company at present (no website, for example). The most recent mention I can find of Global H2O is in this Christian Science Monitor article at the tail end of 2004, which seems rather odd since water has become something of a hot topic lately. A bit of digging finds that the company was acquired by one Nordic American, Inc. in September 04. Nordic American then changed its name to Stark Beneficial, Inc. in February 2008. They don't appear to have a website either. They do, however, have shares on the Pink Sheets which are classed as "caveat emptor" or "toxic", the suggestion being that they have failed to provide adequate current information about themselves. The whole thing's incredibly murky, which presents us with another problem besides notability - we really have no way of knowing whether this company is still in existence or not. Gr1st (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing to Delete in view of Gr1st's comments. Even though there is evidence of notability, if we're struggling to source basic facts such as the corporation's continued existence, I think it is better that it is deleted. That's without prejudice to recreation at a later date, though, if better sources are available. AndyJones (talk) 07:57, 23 July 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.