Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear-flow: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
r |
|||
Line 16:
::: I do not believe that any coverage of the funding in the local area can be called ''significant coverage of Clear-flow'' as per the above guidelines, because what you are saying by implication is that Clear-flow is notable only for receiving funding - what else is it notable for - has it developed a new processes ? what sets it apart from every other ''liquid waste haulier and disposal contractor'' in the world. [[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 15:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I would not call coverage of clear-flow in printed publications across the whole of the South West of England as local particularly, as they are also featured on numerous websites which people across the world can locate otherwise I would not be covering them in an article. This is a big deal for the development of Cornwall and it is clear-flow that has been covered in all the relevant articles rather than the funding. These are not primarily articles about funding, but the fact a Cornish company has managed to attract it by obtaining coverage in the media of it's environmental practices and the need for doing business in the right way which quite frankly I am in favour of and judging by the pressence of groups such as WikiProject Cornwall so are others.
[[User:Travis810|Travis810]] ([[User talk:Travis810|talk]]) 16:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||