Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-Tech Bridge


 * 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. Per the uncontested evidence of notability. The PROMO claim appears to be thinly grounded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

High-Tech Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are just routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. Some of the articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think it's what we want here. It's time to put an end to it, and remove the bad examples. Only then will we be able to teach the true volunteers how to do it in a proper encyclopedia manner. We can permit promotionalism and decline into a web directory, or we can remove it--all of it--and become a reasonably reliable encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"




 * }
 * Reference Unscintillating (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per nom also, the attempts at inheriting notability. Basic WP:BEFORE shows me press releases, press release reprints, passing mentions and the phrase "high-tech bridge" - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:IAR. A small firm using Wikipedia for promotion. Other than some sparse coverage in non-RS or tech blogs, I don't see anything. I also agree with the nom's statement that it is important to remove these articles (particularly in cases where the company is not unambiguously notable) and encourage a culture of writing better articles free of promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the sources from the article, with obvious press releases and primary sources removed.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There are many sources in the article.  A little reading and clicking shows that this company outed Facebook, Twitter, and Google in 2013 for harvesting the URL from private messages.  See Google news for ["facebook" "Matthew campbell" "high-tech bridge"] for international attention to the suit against Facebook in late 2013.  This is one of the links there.  The suit was certified in May of this year.  Clearly notable as per WP:N, and a company that touches the lives of every editor at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only policy-based argument for deletion here is lack of notability. The 'me too' !votes from the usual suspects don't really add anything. Those editors who believe anything with (in their view) a sniff of promotion about it should be deleted really need to start a policy discussion rather than flooding AfD with these nominations. On the issue of notability, the company in my view looks borderline. There are articles such as these:, , . Ideally I'd like to see more. Most of the sources cited in the article don't really contribute to establishing notability. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:51, 31 October 2016 (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.