Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HALO Maritime Defense 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. I've come to the conclusion that the consensus is to delete the article as no sources have been forthcoming, as per DGG's suggestion. I'm also concerned that those wishing to keep the article appear to give no rationale relating to our policies or guidelines.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

HALO Maritime Defense Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like corp advertising as per WP:SPAM, and lacks general notability. References are entirely primary sources,most linking to promotional sites or the company's own website. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm voting as a new editor, granted, but I do know that Halo is well known in defense and in the Navy where I work. I respectfully request that you count my vote as a subject matter expert. Halo Maritime is a significant part of tactical military and port defense. It's a well-known name in defense.Navynuclear (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Hi Navynuclear. I am an ex-squid myself. My urge to delete is not based on whether or not the subject of the article exists, or is even widely used. There are a lot of criteria for having a Wikipedia article but the most important one is notability. The standards are explained here WP:N. Wikipedia is not just a collection of random knowledge and there are fairly strict standards for what does and does not qualify for its own article. Other requirements include the need for significant in depth coverage by reputable secondary sources. You can read more on that here WP:RS. And finally we have to be ever vigilant against allowing Wikipedia to be turned into a platform for free corporate or personal advertising. Once you have been here a little while you will be amazed how many new articles are just thinly disguised SPAM. See here for more on that WP:ARTSPAM. I try to spend at least one night a week on what I refer to as Wiki Crank duty (Navy inside joke) which is New Article Patrol WP:NPP. And it is rare that I don't end up nominating 10%+ of the new articles I review for deletion on that and other basis. Thank you for participating in this discussion and and THANK YOU for your service to our country. I hope you stick around.(ex PC2 USN) -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Uncertain The problem here is that the sources seem to be based on press releases for the company. Otherwise it doesn't seem like spam, but a straighforward description. One good news or magazine source that is truly independent might be enough, if you can find it.  DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Del-leaning Neutral Refs seem to have been improved since nomination, doesn't look too much like WP:ARTSPAM - but still has a little bit of sales-y language (although that can be fixed without deleting). So the real question is WP:GNG/WP:CORP, and I'm not particularly convinced it meets either. But maybe another couple good sources can clear that up. Ansh666 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP, which it does not meet. All the references are not RS. -- Y not? 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep More notable sources needed and needs only direct historical information, but is a notable company and serves a notable purpose of national security. Sherwood10 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2013 (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.