Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodge Cottrell Ltd


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lodge Cottrell Ltd

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

Vanity page. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's improved enough to call it a keep now, though still has serious issues that can be solved through editing. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Delete or fundamentally rewrite from scratch.  I believe the company is notable, however, the current article is pure corporate vanity/advertising, and should not remain.  If the article were recreated as an encyclopedia article, then I would vote keep.  Gigs (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have removed the promotional content from the article - there's still plenty left, but it needs sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article needs references other than company's web site. Some text copypasted from web site. Need to sort out copyright permissions? Esowteric (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Suggest some text is reworded or permission obtained from company or license/release into public domain shown on web site. Failing that, prune? Esowteric (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hundreds of reliable sources found by Google Books and Google News searches. I've added a couple to the article, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't see how this can be a "vanity page" when the people named died in 1940 and 1948 respectively. If there's copyright-violating content we can cut this back to a stub, but it certainly doesn't merit deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Corporate vanity is still vanity. We do speedy delete it often. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and notability is still notability, whatever we may suspect the motives of article creators to be. We keep and edit articles on notable subjects rather than delete them. I don't think "vanity" is a helpful word to use in a discussion about whether we should have an article on a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if someone G11's it first. Dozens of articles like this are speedy deleted every day.  Anyway if you didn't notice, I was the one to nominate this for rescue, even though I voted delete, because of basically the reasons you are outlining here. Gigs (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice, and it was a good tagging, thank you, but why !vote delete when an article can be fixed in a few minutes simply by removing some of the content? The idea of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia about notable subjects, not to punish supposed spammers. My main issue here is the word "vanity", which, whenever I see it used in a deletion discussion, seems to be a breach of our policy on the assumption of good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (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.