Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 23 August 2007 (Add Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technomancer Press). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:24, 23 August 2007 by Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) (Add Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technomancer Press)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Points of interest related to Business on Misplaced Pages:
Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Business

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. Carlossuarez46 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Technomancer Press

Technomancer Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article's content is comprised of thinly disguised spam promoting the company, whilst its products are listed in detail in the article body, the reference and external links sections. Strip away the self-promotion and the peacock language, this advertorial fails to demonstrate notabilty, which is yet to come. --Gavin Collins 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have they changed the way articles make it to "good" status recently? Because I have always thought of that process as absurdly subjective. One spam account creats an article and the next spam account awards it "good" status.-Apollo58 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And that might perhaps be why I noted it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even spam can be well-written! There seems to be an awful lot of detail written about the "products", just enough for the prospective buyer perchance? --WebHamster 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, well-written spam indeed. Realkyhick 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I agree that this is clearly spam, I'm not sure it should be deleted. The main problem is not the exiistence of the article or the notability of the publishing company, but the way it is presented. It could easily be rewritten in a more neutral and less promotional style and be acceptable. I'd suggest that the original author undertake such an effort and then let us judge it. --Hanging Jack 18:25, 30 August 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.
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. Carlossuarez46 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uzel Holding

Uzel Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tractor manufacturer. Article keeps getting re-created here or at Uzel Corporation. Clearly written by someone with a COI. Unsalvageable spam / non-notable company / just needs cleanup? -- RHaworth 15:01, 23 August 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.
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. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tilera

Tilera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
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.
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. Without sources it isn't something Wiktionary will want. If references can be found, the article and be undeleted for transwikification. WjBscribe 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Transaction bible

Transaction bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition, probably a neologism, but it's not in widespread enough use to even figure that out. CitiCat 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikitonary I think it should be moved to our sister dictionary project. - Presidentman 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--
  • Delete as proposed by Citicat on grounds that the article's content, which is composed of original research, provides insufficient evidence that this term for a bundle of documents is in widespread use outside the specialist legal firms enganged in Mergers and acquisitions. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary The term is commercially well understood by commercial banks and law firms (not just on M&A deals, but on almost all significant transactions), but I cannot imagine that there is enough interesting to say about them to justify an encyclopedia article. "They contain copies of all documents on a transaction. They came into use when modern photocopying became prevalent, and modern tendency has been for them to be electronic rather than paper form." That's about it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment the term may (technically) fall within the definition of a neologism, but I certainly would not view it as violating Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms for the same reason that other commonly understood terms like e-mail, prequel and soccer mom are permissible notwithstanding that they are technically neologisms. I couldn't cite authority for the proposition, but the term has been in common currency at least as long as I have been practising law; I would guess it dates to the 1970s or possible earlier. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary per Legis. --Aarktica 20:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The burden of WP:NEO is technically not met, since the article has no references that discuss the usage of the term. No objection to future recreation of an article on this, or a Wiktionary entry, when proper references are located. It's not reasonable to expect the closing admin to find proper references. Note this comment from WP:NEO: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. EdJohnston 22:22, 26 August 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.
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 all.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Green Lakes, Dubai

Green Lakes, Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability has been established. This development is just a common day mixed use commercial and residential complex that has no notability. Luke! 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same editor within days of each other because they are all mixed use developments in Dubai consisting of several towers that have no established notability:

Saba Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seef Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wind Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armada Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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.
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. — TKD::Talk 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley Foods

Bay Valley Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The purpose of the page appears to be only to advance original research arguments for the organization being a major polluter, based on primary sources. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (a) This article does describe the products manufactured. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the particulate matter the plant produces. If I lived in Pittsburgh, I would want to know about both (a) and (b). In short, this is a good example of the kind of thing that Misplaced Pages does well. Bellagio99 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (repeat). I've just edited and reformatted the badly written article. You might want to read again.

: I disagree with some of the above assertions. The article is very well referenced: more than almost any other WP articles I've read. It does describe the products. To be sure, it describes the company's pollution, but this appears to be fact-based and not slanted.

: This article belongs in Misplaced Pages.

: Please note: I don't live in Pittsburgh, and I don't belong to any organized anti-pollution groups. :Bellagio99 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The major issue here is not presentation. The material on pollution is a textbook example of original research. No notable secondary sources are cited: the page explicitly presents primary sources, and draws its own conclusions. (Look for sentence beginning "Therefore, this facility".) The source for visible smoke plumes is an email address. The guidelines advise that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources; this helps ensure notability and neutrality. This page is making an argument, not just presenting information. With OR material removed, there's nothing left but a list of products, which is an advertisement. The page fails WP:CORP. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV-pushing synthesis of primary sources. There are no citations from secondary sources to indicate whether this particular plant's emissions are significantly out of the norm or have caused independent third parties to be concerned. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic example of a stealth attack page, complete with poor sourcing: From the article: "nsolic@achd.net can verify this." Readers should not have to email random people to verify content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - stealth attack page; original research that is not even supported by the citations given; unverifiable sources and no secondary reliable sources (or unreliable - not even a blog post) provided (or found in independent searching) to support claims; potentially libelous; does not meet WP:CORP - and all of the other comments I made into the wee hours last night on the talk page, and the comments made here by an array of editors. Further, based on several comments made by the only contributor to the page - both on its talk page and elsewhere around the encyclopedia - I believe this page was created with political motives as a dirty trick - perhaps to use a Misplaced Pages article as evidence of claims that seem not to have been reported anywhere else. I am not often in the "delete" camp on Afds, but this is an open-and-shut classic case for deletion and I wholeheartedly endorse the action. Tvoz |talk 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)--

Keep' (a) 'I have added a reference to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that discusses this facility. One of the main objections is that there is no press for this facility. This article show that this facility is a top emitter from a coal fired furnace. As other documentation in the article show, this facility was owned by Heinz, then Del Monte, Then by Bay Valley Foods. 67.163.247.142 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep (a) Keep (a) This article is similar to articles for Colgate Polmolive, Crest, Quacker Oats, tic tacs and other major multinational corporations. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the sections discussed. The main objection seems to be that Barak Obamas' wife is on the board of directors for the parent corporation, Treehouse Foods. I have striven to produce a good example of the kind of thing that Misplaced Pages does well. I wish to inform others about this company. Moreover, if you look through the discussion and history, I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people who are insisting on deleting this article. This company is a major source of the toxins listed. This is not my opinion. It is taken directly from the permit. The permit is not online, but it can be obtained from me or the health department. Is it fair to require that all references be online? What did encyclopedias do before the internet? Other articles about manufacturers describe products and also negative aspects of a company. I had many other sections in this article, but those other sections have been deleted. Please view the history. Some of them can be put back into the article for completeness. The information on pollution is taken directly from the EPA's Toxic Release Information Database. These are not my numbers. The article does not judge the effects of this companies emissions. Instead, it merely quotes the EPA's Envirofact Warehouse's information on Hydrochloric Acid. Nowhere in the article does it mention visible plumes. I believe that there is a concerted effort here to keep this information from the american people. This article was here for months. Yesterday, I added a link from Mrs. Obamas' page to this article. Within an hour, the section on toxins in the Bay Valley article was deleted. An objection is that no notable sources are quoted. I quote the EPA, the permit authority for the county where the plant resides, and I quote the Lexdon Business Library. I never statte that the emissions are outside the norm. Many of these objections are to things that are not stated in the article. Many of these objections are slanderous. 67.163.247.142 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note: the above IP address, 67.163.247.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is the same person as the creator of the article, BmikeSci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - he edits and comments on talk under both identities interchangeably. Tvoz |talk 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please note that I use the pronoun I in my defense here. For example I state "I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people" There is no attempt to hide my identity. I was logged out and did not realize it. The fact that I am attacked for any little issue goes a long way to show that I am not being treated fairly, and that there is some underlying agenda on the part of my attackers. BmikeSci 15:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There was no accusation of anything in my post about the IP address - it was to inform editors that it was one voice speaking, not two. I invite editors to follow the links that this editor has posted on this page regarding other editors. Other than the one that says I edit the Obama pages (among 1600+ other unique pages that I edit, and requiring the most edits because it is under the most attack by vandals, sockpuppets and other dirty tricksters), I am finding that these links are bogus. Perhaps others will have a different experience. Tvoz |talk 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment'Check the internet archive for these pages!BmikeSci 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

♦Delete There is nothing left once the unverifiable OR is deleted. Prior to that, it was still marginal in terms of notability. The parent company might be notable; one factory is not. Since I read this page last night, much of the text has been moved around, apparently by BmikeSci. I am not sophisticated enough in using the History page to work it all out, but this kind of activity does not "smell" right, even if no text has been lost or changed. Comments should remain in the order in which they are written, and comments should go at the bottom of all previous text. I have nothing to do with elections in the U.S., being a Canadian, and have no ties to any organization or person mentioned here or in the article. Bielle 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In two successive edits, Corvus cornix and Duae Quartunciae removed a series of additions to this thread which did not address arguments, but speculated on motives. One of these was my own comment. I am not sure if this was really appropriate; if not then I guess we are ignoring rules in good faith to assist substantive discussion and avoid ill will. I recommend this aside be ignored, and that people carry on the debate as before. For the record, the two diffs are diffs applied 20:48, 20 Aug. (21:56, 20 Aug) I have also left a message on guidelines and canvasing at BmikeSci. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment' My comments are being deleted from this log. BmikeSci 00:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It is true that some of your comments were removed by Corvus corvix. I noticed the removal, and followed up by removing a comment of my own on motives, that was irrelevant and possibly inflamatory. I apologise for that comment. Removing comments is pretty drastic, so I also gave a link to the relevant edit in the indented paragraph just above and a description of why they were removed. If you want to restore any of these, I will not object, but in all sincerity I strongly advise against it, as a move that could only make your position even worse than it is at present. But it is up to you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:49, 21 August 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.
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 The sources given are all trivial mentions of the organization with a single sentence or are press releases. We can have an article about this when we have non-trivial independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 330 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to ascertain the relationship of either source with WP:RS. The second ref (German language) appears to be a press release. In any case, these would appear to be rather niche references. Deiz talk 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence these satisfy WP:RS. The relevant section of the first reference includes a mission statement and general blurb about what companies in this sector should aspire to do, rather than any independent discussion or coverage of the organisation itself. The second appears to be a press release. Neither appears to satisfy either the spirit or wording of the relevant guidelines. Neither reference is used in the article. The COI is not given as a reason to delete, rather an indicator that the article was not created by an independent editor who saw a need for this topic to be covered. So, with huge respect DGG, keep on what grounds? Deiz talk 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I should have said more. Keep on the basis of its status as one of the 6 UNEP Global Environmental Centres . I think this would also apply to the article above. The Centres are each a separate program, with nothing really in common except being jointly sponsored by the UNEP and some other body, but I suppose they could be merged anyway. DGG (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat 03:40, 17 August 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.

WP:PROD nominations

Deleted after prod expiration

Category: