Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International


 * 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 TO DELETE. The article is anodyne in its current state, the company appears to meet WP:CORP in having "...been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works.", and there is no strong numerical or argument advantage to either side.

Whether there is another article in here struggling to get out, about the malfeasance and legal problems of the entity, I do not feel qualified to judge. It's perfectly acceptable to have negative information on an entity providing that (1) it's true (2) you can prove it. I did find it curious that links to legitimate material on the company have been removed and I put those back in. Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Herostratus 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS International

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Admins have removed notable information - inserted Primary Source Material and made this an advertisement. Violates WP:NOR and does not fulfill WP:CORP with all of the press worthy information removed.WizardOfWor 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is confusing. "Admins have removed notable information???" To what purpose? Upon perusing the history log, fluff was removed from the article, NOT notable content. As for WP:CORP, how does that relate to this article? The company apparently has a rather interesting technology known as Hypercable; I suspect including material on this alone would suffice for notability. Aarktica 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. This company helped to found an industry not only with Equipment but with legal challenges and then by being prohibited from US sales and imports by a US Federal Court. Why is that FLUFF? Without the "fluff," this "company," now a shell, is not notable. Your link is to marketing material, not a report from a customer or press. Are you familiar with this technology? As well, the inventor of the "technology" left the company due to the "fluff." If the technology is Notable, why is the exit of the inventor, not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardOfWor (talk • contribs) 2007-03-27 15:19:15
 * Dubious original research from primary sources was used to make the article an attack piece ; after a review of the sources due to a complaint to WP:OTRS, I found that little to none of the information of the article was even mentioned in the sources. This article was then stubbified.   Since then the only changes have been corrections to basic factual information per the company's website by an employee of the company.  Nominator posted this AfD after being unsuccessful at keeping article in his preferred version, which included the attacks and misinformation.  Might be worth a note that the nominator also uploaded a company logo for the article claiming self-public domain as the license (obviously, this has been deleted). I will be researching whether or not company meets WP:CORP as follow up to the OTRS request and will update my comments here. Shell babelfish 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some secondary sources I believe qualify the article under the notability guidelines:


 * This does appear to be a rather brief spurt of media attention though and the company doesn't have an article in the French Wikipedia, which one would expect since it is headquartered there. Just a guess, but I believe the current edit war may stem from an on-going court case, participants in the edit war appear to represent one company or the other: Shell babelfish 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Information that is pertinent to this discussion has been moved here. - WizardOfWor 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain t/ c 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:CORP. Without going into the above conflict, it's plain that whatever information has been dredged from various Internet nooks and crannies, the article's defenders have not put any of it into the actual article.  If the article actually establishes some notability and sourcing -- which it does not -- then my opinion may change.    RGTraynor  17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original article seems to be mainly an attack page; take that out and you're left with dubious notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the material found by Shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Seems to be a small insignificant company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.17.236 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep based on findings by Shell. Needs to be appropriately tagged for cleanup and sources, but that is not a reason to delete. --Mus Musculus 05:15, 10 April 2007 (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.