- 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. Completely lacks WP:RS and/or WP:V independent sources. WP:COI seems probable although that's not a reason to delete. However, lack of sources is. Pigman☿ 07:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- APM Terminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This company is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. But the article reads like an advertisement, possibly written by the company's pr agency. See for instance the sentence "...APM Terminals will be at the forefront of environmental action, as we have been in the use of such innovations as..." in the original version. The author, Bertatmindcomet (talk · contribs), is probably related to marketing agency MindComet. One of the agency's clients is APM Terminals. It's better to delete the article and wait for someone to write a neutral article about the company, than to have this lingering around hoping someone will come along and fix it. AecisBrievenbus 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Google news search provides sufficient reliable, third party sources that can be included into the article, this meeting WP:CORP. Does read a bit like an ad, and I've tagged it as such, but needing work doesn't mean delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the company is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. But do we really want to keep an ad written by a pr agency hired by the company around, hoping someone will come along and fix it? AecisBrievenbus 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it isn't the ideal situation, it isn't blatant advertising, and I (nor policy) see a reason to delete it, if it just needs work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The condition of "blatant" advertising only applies to WP:CSD#G11, not to deletion in general. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion simply talks of "advertising"; it doesn't have to be blatant. AecisBrievenbus 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it isn't the ideal situation, it isn't blatant advertising, and I (nor policy) see a reason to delete it, if it just needs work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the company is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. But do we really want to keep an ad written by a pr agency hired by the company around, hoping someone will come along and fix it? AecisBrievenbus 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the policy. I don't believe there is any reason to delete this article. The ad context can be corrected, and it wasn't even tagged until I did it today. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without complete prejudice against recreation, but really, these articles on corporations by single-purpose accounts are tiring. They also violate policies on spam, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. So delete until a better variant is written. Biruitorul (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per subject's notability, but make sure the policy violation tags remain in place. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.