Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithium Technologies

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 NO CONSENSUS (6 keep, 4 delete, 1 non-vote), defaulting to keep. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:13, Dec. 17, 2005

"This is a very poorly written stub. The original author used a lot of passive voice, and therefore cited no sources. The only links were to the different pages on the commercial website (I went ahead and deleted those). None of the other editors have attempted to cite any sources or rework the passive voice comments. It seems to me that no one is really interested in expanding and/or improving this stub, so why keep it? DeleteTheRingess 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't a great article, but it's adequate enough for now. Boring, but notable nonetheless. wikipediatrix 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see how this article meets WP:CORP in any way. I'm happy to change my vote if it does. Agnte 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it is poorly written. But if we were to delete all articles not generating sufficient interest, we would end up with a pretty bare bones encyclopedia. Nezbie 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't accept that as an argument for keeping the article. Quantity does not equal quality in an encyclopedia.TheRingess 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but a search seems to indicate that this clears the notability threshold. Adhering strictly to immediatism and deleting all poorly maintained articles will stifle Wikipedia's growth and eventual quality. Obviously, a rewrite is in order. Nezbie 07:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- does not, in my opinion, meet WP:CORP. Doesn't even come close. Reyk 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 55,900 hits for Lithium Technologies. Two Google news hits show compliance with WP:CORP see [1]. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are incidental mentions, comes under 'trivial coverage' in WP:CORP. The google hits mostly have nothing to do with the company [2] the top google hits are the wikipedia entry and its clones. Agnte 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the one report that Google News throws up when I try the search is about a battery manufacturer, not a company providing tech support. Pilatus 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Capitalistroadster, even incidental mentions like those show that people would want to research the term. Kappa 12:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk. Stifle 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing that can't be improved. -- JJay 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. Pilatus 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I cleaned it up a bit and deleted the worst parts. It's not a great article, especially as far as verifiability is concerned, but it can be difficult to find verifiable information about small private companies. Phsoffer

• Keep. This is not article is not about to go to press, it doesn't need to be perfect right now. Look at it this way, it is better for someone to edit and improve an article than not having it at all. Unless the information is factually incorrect, I think everyone will like to have some information than none at all. Grow out of your green dress, and support people who right articles instead of shooting them down.

Here's a sentence that should not be in any encyclopedia anywhere:

It is not known how much their products cost, but their products are only available to companies. The price range for a basic forum is said to be anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000, with 1,000 pages views being said to range anywhere from $1000 to $2000.

The first part "It is not known how much their products cost..." is nonsensical and false. The customers know how much they spend. The sales force in the company knows how much they sell.

Following that with "but their products are only available to companies." is just amazingly bad grammar. Perhaps the author meant to say, "The forums aren't available to the general public, and according to "So and So, a representative of the company, the forums may cost a company between x and y dollars", or something like that.

Perhaps the original author could have sent an email to the company, stating that they were doing research for an article on Wikipedia and wished to know a basic price range. I'm sure that someone in the company could have given them some information, but maybe that counts as original research.

Then they continue the nonsense with "price range for a basic forum is said to be...", who said it, and if someone said it, why aren't they mentioned and the source provided?

And the next "...with 1000 page views being said...", which begs the question who said it? And is it1000 page views per day, per month, per hour? I argue that these two sentences do not belong, as they are written, in any Encyclopedia anywhere. And no editor has felt compelled to either delete them or rewrite them (and I'm not volunteering, except to delete them). Take those two sentences away and you're left with nothing. Plus, it's just my personal opinion, the number of google hits a phrase gets is a terrible metric for determining whether or not an article belongs. Simply because, more and more, Wikipedia is used as a source for a hit. So why not delete, and if someone is so bothered by that, let them recreate it and write a better article. TheRingess 01:49, 10 December 2005 (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.