Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Servis
Spammy unsourced corporate profile. The deprodder brings up verifiability concerns. MER-C 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Didn't see anything on google or company's website about news coverage, so doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP, either.--Kchase T 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)- Weak Keep. As well-known in the UK as (say) Hotpoint or Zanussi, and the article only needs a little work to get it up to the standards of those articles. Of course, it may be argued that those articles need to go for lack of verifiability, as well... Tevildo 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Kchase T 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The issue, I understand, is verifiability rather than notability. Are the Hotpoint and Zanussi articles considered adequately verified at the moment? If so, the Servis article is equally-well verified, with links to the websites of the company itself and its parent company. If not, additional information is needed for all three articles; what sort of information would this be? Tevildo 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The issues are both verifiability and notability, as already mentioned above, and the relevant criteria are WP:CORP, as also already mentioned above. That other articles are also bad is irrelevant. The company's own web site does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Look at BETDAQ#References for an example of how to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satsified. Uncle G 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- The issue, I understand, is verifiability rather than notability. Are the Hotpoint and Zanussi articles considered adequately verified at the moment? If so, the Servis article is equally-well verified, with links to the websites of the company itself and its parent company. If not, additional information is needed for all three articles; what sort of information would this be? Tevildo 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Kchase T 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known UK brand: ebay.co.uk has 86 Servis items or parts on offer today. Pam Davies 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this appears to be a real appliance company with some significant presence in the UK, and is probably verifiable with some work. -- Whpq 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for not passing Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Bjelleklang - talk 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm willing to bet that every consumer in the UK knows the name and the products associated with it. A very large proportion of us have them. A major player, up there with Hotpoint, Hoover etc Emeraude 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (By the way, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) point out that it provides 'rough guidelines'.) Emeraude 11:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Player in the UK white good market. See trade press coverage [1], [2] and Government agency report [3]. Catchpole 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously a notable brand name in England. They now appear to be more of a waning player with some leverage of the brand name by the new owners for new purposes. At the least they are historically notable (once an important company), like RCA or US Steel. AT&T has remained a strong brand name and recently has re-emerged as an actual company despite nearly disappearing a few years ago.--Nick Y. 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well-known UK company. Ebay.co.uk lists 86 parts or items today. Pam Davies 11:40, 8 January 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.
