Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProCharger

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. Alan, I understand your position but unfortunately in this case you haven't convinced anybody. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProCharger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Here we have yet another example of SPAM by stealth. An article about a run of the mill company created by a new user who has done very few other edits. WP is not the Yellow Pages. WP is being used and abused as a free advertising service. Sure, the article meets WP:GNG because that can be interpreted to include virtually any company. Companies make it their business to get noticed. The inclusionists and advertising industry drones and PR lackeys who hang out here need to realise that we are trying to create an encyclopaedia and not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep No policy-based reasons for deletion given. May be a case of WP:POINT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any polcy-based reasons for deletions? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:AFDP. You nominated this page knowing it passes WP guidelines/policies and therefore you have no reason to call for it to be deleted. Your actions are disruptive and against WP policies (WP:BEFORE, WP:POINT). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ProCharger is a well-known company with a plethora of outside sources referencing their contribution to the automotive aftermarket, superchargers, and DIY turbocharging. These topics are relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia and therefore so are the companies which make this type of equipment. Per the Find Sources request, I have added two additional references to the article which come directly from Google Books. However, there many more books listed on a simple search for ProCharger within Google books. I am not aware of any policy which would make the number of edits or contributions a user has made while registered to be a relevant point, so I will simply leave the facts to stand on their own. EBS78 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above two editors. Procedural + substantive reasons. Lord Roem (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Footnotes 2 and 12 look good to me. Pretty clearly a leading producer of supercharger parts. Obviously a piece done by someone skilled in WP craft; but not spammy. Carrite (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable and it is a well-written article. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Procedural Keep per Colapeninsula above. I suggest that although Alan Liefting's WP:POINT is valid, you used the wrong article to serve as an example. I recommend that you find one that's less ambiguous, or propose a change to WP:CORP to require companies to meet more stringent guidelines. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have WP:CORP to be more stringent but I cannot stomach the haggling, and the inclusionists with simply point to WP:GNG as a means of keeping an article. Afds are being used to keep all sorts of rubbish that does not belong in an encyclopaedia, even for one that is not paper. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is two-sided. I also have some issuers with it, but my concerns are from deletionists using it to exclude articles about things that are notable encyclopedic content by common sense, but which happen not to have two technically acceptable sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 26 April 2012 (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.