Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent UK Holdings Limited


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent UK Holdings Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Probably a very commendable company but I see no evidence of notability here. The Telegraph article appears to make no mention of the company and many of the rest are the company's own web-site. The Gloucester Citizen piece reads like a press release and is a very local source. The Practacysis article is also very niche and reads like a press release. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 11:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent (UK Holdings) Limited page is well written and very constructive. The company is notable in the it owns and controls these Subsidiary companies, International Intelligence Limited has a very constructive page of its own.

The citation with regards to the Telegraph article is citing that Mr Bomberg worked for the Royal family in the UK and makes mention of one of the companies within the group structure. It is a fair and correct citation. The citation for the Citizen article is indeed a County publication, it is clearly written as an "interest story" and not a press release. I disagree with you on this. The Practacysis article is a constructive article by an industry specific on-line blog. Intelligent Armour is mentioned in many locations but always within military, industry specific sites as would be expected. such as this article where is also mentions Intelligent UK Holdings Limited and Intelligent Armour Limited. https://everydaytactical.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/interview-with-alex-bomberg-ceo-intelligent-limited/

Intelligent Armour Limited is also listed in thise Export Controls Freedom of information act release https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/foi-responses/pdf/2013-04-24.bis-eco.foi-13-0402-companies-applying-for-ml-licences-in-2011.pdf but is the relevant to cite??

Intelligent Protection International Limited, for this BBC etc. news clips (videos) could have been cited, these are available on the companies website, for example: https://www.intelligent-holdings.co.uk/bbc-news-channel-december-2010.html

The company clearly owns registered Trademarks and like many "Holding or Parent" companies you would not expect much if any thing to be written about them.

I was under the impression that external links to "about us" pages were permitted under guidelines.

If you took for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauritzen_Corporation the Intelligent (UK Holdings) Limited rates better as this example clearly ONLY has links to its Subsidiary companies "About Pages". Mokaroux (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as this is all still questionable and I'm not seeing any convincing signs of satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinofert_Holdings
 * Keep Of course it could be improved upon by the Wiki community in time but it is better written and more informative than many other 'Holdings' or 'Parent' company pages including for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauritzen_Corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Merchants_Corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natixis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOC_Hong_Kong_(Holdings)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Assets_Holdings

The ownership of five companies, one of which has a listing on Wiki (International Intelligence) and the ownership of Registered Trademarks is notable, more so than some of the holdings/parent companies listed in the examples above. Mokaroux (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the links above to other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. North America1000 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I take that point on board and can understand. However, this article is very well written by myself and exceeds many others on the same subject, it was the quality of the article and citing etc that i was getting at, not the fact that these other articles exist. Any external links are kept to the six companies in question "About us" pages as per the guidelines. I do not understand how this article cannot be worthy when it is accepted that we will have 2-3 line (ill written) entries on other Companies in the same category. This entry is only going to get better with Wiki community support, it would be zealous to disallow this entry and on very weak grounds. Mokaroux (talk) 07:21, 21 April 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.