Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITM Power


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ITM Power

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted, and I still don't see any notability. Yes, it has a contract with the UK Government, but how does that make this small company notable? All I see are a few press releases around and some stuff from the local news; not significant enough. Yes, there are a lot of reference. But this seriously fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are so few good sources that I just can't see enough notability in this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep First of all, I'd like to explain why this was nominated. I was asking TAP to review it for DYK. He then proceeded to file an AfD. OK, right, ITM Power is reasonably notable in my opinion. WP:CORP is the policy that applies to this article. As proved by the many references in the article, it meets the opening sentence of WP:CORP that says"A subject is generally notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..." It is pretty clear that there is no inherent or inherited notability gained by the subject. All sources seem acceptable, and I really can't see how this doesn't meet WP:CORP W.D. (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The green energy contract with the British government makes it notable, in addition to the numerous 3rd party sources that already exist. Legoktm (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per W.D. - any company with such clear links with the British government is clearly notable. Article does need expanding if possible though. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure where "strong links" to government come from - and I don't see that at WP:CORP as a notability criteria. I see a small company with a few press releases printed and local coverage. Nothing to say there is anything notable about it. I have asked W.D. for what specific WP:CORP criteria it meets without response - the first two references given are clearly from press releases, the third and fourth are explicitly press releases, the fifth is a directory entry, the sixth is another press release, the seventh could be the basis if other good refs can back it up, the eighth mentions the company in passing - not significant coverage, the ninth is another press release, the tenth might be significant or could be another press release not as clear cut as some of the others, the eleventh and twelfth are not significant coverage, the thirteenth and fourteenth are basically the same, and the last is a primary source. While there seems to be a lot of sources, there are very few good sources so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. noq (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The first two sources, which I see no idea how you can address together, do not seem to be based on press releases nor be press releases themselves (at least not the latter source). To write an article about a company, triggered by a press release does not in any way make it a press release or even be purely based on a press release. The third is not a press release, it is a reference to said person as a non-executive director. As for the fourth, if the London Stock Exchange news service isn't a reliable source, then that is pretty weird, I also note that it is not a press release. The fifth, is an entry with information on the company, so I don't see how that isn't reliable. The sixth is record of a speech made, not a press release. I'll finish this comment later, I have to go now. W.D. (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrasing in the first two reports looks very much like an edited press release - The first appears to be derived from an announcement from the Carbon Trust on 31 July, the second seems entirely based on quotes from the company, the third is an announcement of the appointment of a director which does nothing to support notability, neither does the directory entry in ref 5, the sixth is a speech from the company hosted on the companies own website -a primary source and no good for establishing notability. noq (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this count as a valid source? If it does, it does clearly state their links with a governmental scheme, plus the largest sustainable energy project in the UK. A few other articles I found on the internet that aren't just press releases: |1,, . I'll leave it for the more experienced Wikipedians to decide whether these are valid enough sources. I'm still sticking with my keep view from earlier. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Star is a dead link. See WP:NEWSORG. The Star, and many other newspapers are all unreliable. Things like the BBC are reliable, and possibly The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian. The Daily Star, along with The Sun are the least reliable sources I can think of. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a dead link because I goofed with this link. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- namely per the the green energy contract w/ the British government, as well as per W.D.'s comments.  Theo polisme  11:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How can something be notable just because it has a contract with the UK Government? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to badger. I meant that specific contract -- and what it entailed... not just any run of the mill project.  Theo polisme  20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep; You had me at The Economist. There is a bit too much PR in the references, true, but the ones that are for reals Reliable Sources would easily be sufficient. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Company has been given detailed coverage by the Economist and the BBC. Meets the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organisations.-- xanchester  (t)  23:08, 25 October 2012 (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.