Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermoteknix Systems 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermoteknix Systems Ltd
Contested prod, flagrant WP:SPAM for a non-notable company. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. VoiceOfReason 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This sort of thing really gets my goat. Legis 16:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine too, but unfortunately there's no speedy deletion criterion that covers this sort of garbage. I would loudly be in favor of a CSD modeled after WP:CSD with "promote" in place of "disparage". VoiceOfReason 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company seems to be doing some pretty cool things. I added some external links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked very closely at WP:CORP and didn't see "seems to be doing some pretty cool things" listed among the criteria. Did I miss it somewhere? VoiceOfReason 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have been more explicit. "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Please review the entries under "External links', including the article from the Cambridge Evening News and various trade magazines and exhibitions. These establish notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't. WP:CORP specifically excludes the company's own press releases.  The Materialica article, for example, has "Source: Thermoteknix Systems Ltd." at the bottom of the article.  It's a straight re-print of a corporate press release.  The Cambridge Evening News article is a re-hash of another of the company's press releases, too.  You can see many of the company's press releases here.  Compare them with the articles that you have linked to. Uncle G 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done for looking and doing the research, though. Don't give up.  See whether you can find some non-trivial published works that aren't from the company itself. Uncle G 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Uncle G's research. Rehashed press releases are far too widespread to be used as a good source. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:TruthbringerToronto is the one doing the leg work, and who deserves credit, not I. Uncle G 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are numerous examples of substantive published works that aren't press releases, including a paper by Johns Hopkins University with respect to the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System: Radiometric dynamic scene processing for uncooled IRFPAs and a paper from The International Society for Optical Engineering concerning Aeropod-protected Infrared Cameras. Thermoteknix 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete “Queen’s Award for Export Achievement”? Is that like The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? --Xrblsnggt 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment http://www.guralp.com/news1/qae_1999.htm explains the “Queen’s Award for Export Achievement”, which is now known as The Queen's Awards for Enterprise http://www.queensawards.org.uk Before you make fun of something, you should try to figure out what it is. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:14, 22 August 2006 (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.