Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thames Materials


 * 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The result was   no consensus or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thames Materials

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Despite an alleged "Occupational safety and health" breach matter, I see no notability for this LL Private Company. Shirt58 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The company's poor safety record seems to be its claim to notability and these are supported by multiple reliable sources. No one incident encompasses this notability, but the driver who was over the "alcohol limit" and using a mobile phone when he killed a cyclist does stand out(and has sourcing). Indeed the incidents and criticisms appear to be stretched out over years. Outback the koala (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Even if its notability was contingent on its poor safety record, it would seem to be rather clumsy to rename the article "Poor OH&S record of Thames Materials" or similar.  I've seen the article in its current form, and withdraw nomination seems to be on the cards.  If you have no objections, I would prefer to wait until the consensus isn't simply your !vote, plus me commenting on your !vote.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly no objection from me. Outback the koala (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * relisting comment. Though the nom bolded "nomination withdrawn" he has also suggested that more comments would be helpful, therefore let's give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2010 (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.