Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HARBEC Plastics


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

HARBEC Plastics

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

Contested prod, and OTRS pending. This page is about a company whose notability is unclear. It was previously deleted as a copyright violation, hence the OTRS pending tag. The deleted version has been restored because of this tag, but the problem is that the site it was copied from is a primary source about the company: it is the company's own website. The article is entirely promotional in tone, and the subject's notability is not established, but speedy G11 has been declined solely on the basis of the OTRS pending tag, which has been inserted by the page's creator. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the OTRS request is for an as yet unrevealed third-party source that does establish notability.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep in light of recent edits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have another revision. Where should I put it? Kateetak (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not looking for "other revisions" as much as we're looking for third-party reliable sources. Can you provide any? Your OTRS request for permission, was it for the company's website, or was it for some other source we have yet to hear about? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have got involved by my watching of the feedback page where Kateetak posted. After various deletions/undeletions, which muddle edit histories, I am not sure what order things have been happening in, but the article itself was not there when I posted on the feedback page (I think). I shifted the modifications from Kateetak's own version to the undeleted page (I hope I am not confusing things further). Essentially, there are two good sources: the first two refs of the current version (and particularly the first). Once the issue of text copied from the company's site is gone, this should be just about good enough. A whole article in a (specialist) source goes a long way to demonstrating notability. Regarding the copying, if Kateetak is not an employee/friend of Harbec, experience tells me it is a good idea to assume that permission will not happen and do a rewrite in your own words. Once copyright is sorted out, I would say that this on the verge, but just about makes keep. (UPDATE: conditional keep now firm keep—see below)— Kan8eDie (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You will need "significant coverage in reliable sources". One source is probably not sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some articles in the past (note to policy junkies: consensus, not WP:WAX) have got by with a good article each from one or two national newspapers. I agree, one is pushing it, but it is an advance, and, while we wait for things to slow down and sort themselves out, I would still say keep, at least for a short time (assuming copyright is quickly resolved). At least we now have evidence of some interest. Some less good sources (my own, from google) include a release from a company selling wind turbines to Harbec ("Harbec Plastics, Inc. has a well-known green focus") and mention in various minor environmental organisations' case studies, like this.— Kan8eDie (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: A note on press releases - I don't think a PR repeated verbatim on another company's website is a reliable source either. – ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is stated on the main policy page (WP:COMPANY). They are useful to be able to say what the company claims to be doing, but not to say what it is actually doing. My 'less good' sources were mentions of interest, not notability-defining use of reliable sources. I have removed some excessive phrases from the lead. Ultimately though this not about how good the article is, but whether we can back up notability.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OTRS Comment: The OTRS request (2285651 for those with accounts) just confirms that the text is GFDL. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now that more information has come out (including the OTRS comment), I am confirming my conditional position above for the following reasons. Firstly, the previous speedy deletes of this article were mainly on the basis of copyvio; this has now been cleared up, and the content is legal. Secondly, the AfD was proposed at a time when the referencing of the article was rather unclear, and it was extremely non-obvious what sources were being used. Now, the notability is much more apparent. Though still a bit border-line, we can see that it has had a full article in a plastics-specialist online paper, and the main case-study source in article (plus the other less-reliable refs and further google hits) confirm that HARBEC has a significant reputation for its well-beyond-average environmental concerns. The quality of the article as it stands does, it must be admitted, give a certain impression of advertising, but great improvements have been made, both by the original contributer and a few others. These are sufficient to demonstrate that any promotional tone is accidental (it must be taken into account that this is the first contribution of the initial author), and that there is a strong intention for the article to exist as more than just spam. The issues in this area are therefore not of concern in this particular debate. While appropriate given the information available at the time, I think that the nominator's concerns are now addressed: all copyright concerns are over, and the primary source for at least the lead is the third-party article now identified. I hope that we can recognise the importance of this company (in its field) for a comprehensive encyclopaedia, particularly for its environmental efforts, and move on from here to make this a great article. Certainly the subject matter is serious, unlike manga or pokemon, and appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and given the interest shown by the sources, there seems no reason therefore for rejection.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I totally agree with Kan8eDie. The nominator's reasons for deletion have been reconciled: there are now third party refs, no more copyright problems, and it has been found that the company is notable in its field. I think that describing the tone in the article as "extremely promotional" is a little extreme in itself. Like somebody above mentioned, we have to keep in mind that the article's creator is a new user, and we have to assume good faith. Killiondude (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 18 December 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.