Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Technologies 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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BW Technologies Ltd

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:NOT (advertisement)

Adspam for non-notable corporation, complete with contact details. At least partial copy/paste (is it copyvio with spam?) from [1]. Contested PROD. Sandstein 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As the original author of the specific article, I will not deny that I have a personal interest in the specific company, but I do not have a personal profit out of it. The article does not describe my company or my website. My personal interest in the technology behind the company and it's products is no different to the interest of someone to, lets say, BMRT (arguably this is not a more notable technology to most than a very small percentance of people who use Wikipedia - but for very few is important indeed). My intentions are not different than these. Please dont overlook also that I personaly characterised the article as stub, inviting other people to add their knowledge in it. As you know I am new in wikipedia and I have to put effort to learn how to write properly according to all rules. I just had time to write a couple of sentences to learn how the system works! I will not be afraid to say that you were too quick in exercising your administrative rights and propose the article for deletion; I am afraid it appears like an intimidation strategy!! I think that according to the philosophy of wikipedia you should respect other peoples' interests and be more patient to judge other peoples' intentions. You could say that the article is spam if I had put links all over and no content, but this is not the case; only people who have direct interest to the company and its technology will search for it. So, wikipedia sysops, decide whether is a better policy to intimidate newcomers with threats or help them learn to write proper articles ... --Haiou Xu 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Haio Xu. Please be assured that it was never my intention to WP:BITE you, or even to intimidate you with threats, of which none at all have been made. Please also note that, as per WP:AGF, this is not an accusation one should make lightly.

I am happy that you have joined Wikipedia as a contributor. I am also certainly not holding it against you as a person that you have created this article as part of your learning experience. However, I have simply followed applicable policy, in this case WP:CORP, to nominate this article for deletion as a part of our collaborative effort to make sure that only encyclopedic content is featured in Wikipedia. I encourage you to read WP:NOT in order to find out more about this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does receive many spam articles that often do resemble very much the article you wrote - with glowing descriptions of the company, phone numbers, etc. - so I hope you understand why I assessed it as spam.

By the way, now that you have stated that you are not affiliated with the corporation, I have to advise you that it is forbidden to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, e.g. from a company website. It even says so below the edit window: "Content must not violate any copyright." Please read WP:C to find out more.

My advice to you is that you chalk this up as part of a very normal Wikipedia learning experience - incidentally, my first article, as an anonymous user, was also nominated for deletion within a short time - and have fun continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Once again, welcome! Sandstein 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It does not appear to me that this company is particularly notable or worthy of inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia per the stated guidelines. If they were the first or the largest of something it would make them more notable, or if they developed a significant technological advance in water purification that changed the industry, or something like that, it would help. Thatcher131 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry for continuing to argue against the proposal for deleting the article that I have started, but I think that the arguments against it are mostly untrue and, again, show too quick judgment. Please respect the fact that in a strange way the proposal appears offensive to me since it is like saying to me that I dont have interesting enough interests. Click any number of Random Articles and 8 out of 10, at least, will appear uninteresting to any one of us. As far as I have read in Wikipedia's 'policies' I haven't seen anywhere that articles have to be interesting to everyone or indeed that a company should be the the first or the largest of something or that has changed the world to be included in it. In fact most of the companies listed in 'Category:Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom' or indeed in manufacturing company stubs are not more 'notable' that the company I am interested in. The specific manufacturing sector has only a handful or two of players and BW Technologies is one of the strongest ones; it needs an expert to know, not just a look through the website. Again... I think the article was judged too quickly, before I had the time to edit it (I am sorry that I dont have the time to write the article only in one go, but I have seen hundreds of one-liner stubs in wikipedia).The only problem that I can see with my article is that is not edited very nicely but I think I have shown my interest to improve. In any case, if you decide to delete the article ... let it be, but I think that the reason will not be that the article is a 'vanity page' (as I think you call it) but rather that it was quickly judged. --Haiou Xu 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. How about writing/extending one on water purification, even water purification in Britain? THose are both encyclopedic topics. THis is not. That view, and the inevitable deletion, say nothing at all about the company or the author, just about what is an encyclopeadia. Midgley 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comments like 'Speedy delete' and 'inevitable deletion' demonstrate the reasons for feeling victim of an 'intimidation strategy'. Wikipedia is not a battleground. In wikipedia decisions should be made though discusion. There must be a neutral point of view, not personal attacks. The author may write in 'water purification' or about 'water purification in Britain' in the future if he is not too scared to do so. And in any case, wikipedia accepts articles about companies, which should not be judged by whom is the author. Any encyclopedia includes companies, and in wikipedia the notability of the company should be jugded by how nmany people are interested in it. Maybe at the and ot the day I must chalk this up, as Sandstein adviced, and accept the inevitable deletion since in wikipedia, at the end of the day, decisions are are predecided. --Haiou Xu 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think you understand what Sandstein is saying. This process is not a personal attack against you - it deals with specific requirements for articles that are not met in this one. Yes, there are some corporations listed here, but they all meet the requirements of WP:CORP while the company referred to in this article does not. Please don't assume that deletions are pre-decided. They are considered on their own merit.Tony Fox 05:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• week keep : The problem I see is that this only has one source the company web page. Get some 3rd party quotes or facts. ie.: notability... (ex.: make filters for carnaval cruises etc... or sell to Walmart.) blah balh.... dunno just making this up. Perhaps then we'll be looking at getting some real keep votes. Sadly, wikipedia may seem like it's based on notability but really it's all about having the right sources and enought. Good nomination but I'd actually give this one a chance to develop, hopefully someone will be able to find some sources and facts. --CyclePat 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hetar --Arnzy (Talk) 08:43, 6 April 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.