424:. Now that more information has come out (including the OTRS comment), I am confirming my conditional position above for the following reasons. Firstly, the previous speedy deletes of this article were mainly on the basis of copyvio; this has now been cleared up, and the content is legal. Secondly, the AfD was proposed at a time when the referencing of the article was rather unclear, and it was extremely non-obvious what sources were being used. Now, the notability is much more apparent. Though still a bit border-line, we can see that it has had a full article in a plastics-specialist online paper, and the main case-study source in article (plus the other less-reliable refs and further google hits) confirm that HARBEC has a significant reputation for its well-beyond-average environmental concerns.
280:(and particularly the first). Once the issue of text copied from the company's site is gone, this should be just about good enough. A whole article in a (specialist) source goes a long way to demonstrating notability. Regarding the copying, if Kateetak is not an employee/friend of Harbec, experience tells me it is a good idea to assume that permission will not happen and do a rewrite in your own words. Once copyright is sorted out, I would say that this on the verge, but just about makes
447:- I totally agree with Kan8eDie. The nominator's reasons for deletion have been reconciled: there are now third party refs, no more copyright problems, and it has been found that the company is notable in its field. I think that describing the tone in the article as "extremely promotional" is a little extreme in itself. Like somebody above mentioned, we have to keep in mind that the article's creator is a new user, and we have to assume good faith.
430:(in its field) for a comprehensive encyclopaedia, particularly for its environmental efforts, and move on from here to make this a great article. Certainly the subject matter is serious, unlike manga or pokemon, and appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and given the interest shown by the sources, there seems no reason therefore for rejection.—
429:
While appropriate given the information available at the time, I think that the nominator's concerns are now addressed: all copyright concerns are over, and the primary source for at least the lead is the third-party article now identified. I hope that we can recognise the importance of this company
426:
The quality of the article as it stands does, it must be admitted, give a certain impression of advertising, but great improvements have been made, both by the original contributer and a few others. These are sufficient to demonstrate that any promotional tone is accidental (it must be taken into
269:
page where
Kateetak posted. After various deletions/undeletions, which muddle edit histories, I am not sure what order things have been happening in, but the article itself was not there when I posted on the feedback page (I think). I shifted the modifications from Kateetak's
319:) have got by with a good article each from one or two national newspapers. I agree, one is pushing it, but it is an advance, and, while we wait for things to slow down and sort themselves out, I would still say keep, at least for a short time (
427:
account that this is the first contribution of the initial author), and that there is a strong intention for the article to exist as more than just spam. The issues in this area are therefore not of concern in this particular debate.
150:
source about the company: it is the company's own website. The article is entirely promotional in tone, and the subject's notability is not established, but speedy G11 has been declined solely on the basis of the
374:). They are useful to be able to say what the company claims to be doing, but not to say what it is actually doing. My 'less good' sources were mentions of interest, not notability-defining use of
125:
466:
378:. I have removed some excessive phrases from the lead. Ultimately though this not about how good the article is, but whether we can back up notability.—
248:. Can you provide any? Your OTRS request for permission, was it for the company's website, or was it for some other source we have yet to hear about? --
92:
87:
96:
323:
copyright is quickly resolved). At least we now have evidence of some interest. Some less good sources (my own, from google) include
79:
404:
17:
136:. This page is about a company whose notability is unclear. It was previously deleted as a copyright violation, hence the
146:
tag. The deleted version has been restored because of this tag, but the problem is that the site it was copied from is a
49:
497:
36:
496:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
165:
without prejudice against recreation if the OTRS request is for an as yet unrevealed third-party source that
481:
456:
439:
416:
412:
387:
365:
344:
310:
293:
258:
239:
225:
198:
179:
61:
332:
452:
155:
140:
57:
301:: You will need "significant coverage in reliable sources". One source is probably not sufficient. –
83:
271:
231:
435:
383:
340:
289:
235:
477:
371:
361:
306:
221:
194:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
448:
53:
331:
green focus") and mention in various minor environmental organisations' case studies, like
75:
67:
324:
266:
133:
431:
379:
336:
316:
285:
473:
375:
357:
302:
245:
217:
190:
113:
408:
244:
We're not looking for "other revisions" as much as we're looking for
276:
Essentially, there are two good sources: the first two refs of the
315:
Some articles in the past (note to policy junkies: consensus, not
274:
to the undeleted page (I hope I am not confusing things further).
490:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:
for those with accounts) just confirms that the text is GFDL.
356:
on another company's website is a reliable source either. –
352:: A note on press releases - I don't think a PR repeated
325:
a release from a company selling wind turbines to Harbec
277:
120:
109:
105:
101:
284:. (UPDATE: conditional keep now firm keep—see below)—
161:
tag, which has been inserted by the page's creator.
265:I seem to have got involved by my watching of the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
500:). No further edits should be made to this page.
370:Agreed. This is stated on the main policy page (
230:I have another revision. Where should I put it?
467:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
465:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
327:("Harbec Plastics, Inc. has a
1:
482:08:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
457:23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
440:23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
417:17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
388:15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
366:14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
345:03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
311:03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
294:03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
259:02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
240:02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
226:20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
199:01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
180:00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
62:00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
246:third-party reliable sources
216:in light of recent edits. –
517:
493:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
169:establish notability.
403:: The OTRS request (
132:Contested prod, and
44:The result was
484:
470:
256:
177:
50:non-admin closure
508:
495:
471:
461:
376:reliable sources
255:
253:
176:
174:
160:
154:
145:
139:
123:
117:
99:
34:
516:
515:
511:
510:
509:
507:
506:
505:
504:
498:deletion review
491:
278:current version
249:
170:
158:
152:
143:
137:
119:
90:
76:HARBEC Plastics
74:
71:
68:HARBEC Plastics
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
514:
512:
503:
502:
486:
485:
459:
442:
428:
425:
419:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
275:
263:
262:
261:
228:
203:
202:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
513:
501:
499:
494:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
468:
464:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
423:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
273:
268:
264:
260:
252:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
173:
168:
164:
157:
149:
142:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
492:
489:
462:
444:
421:
405:OTRS:2285651
401:OTRS Comment
400:
353:
349:
328:
320:
298:
281:
250:
213:
212:Changing to
207:
206:
204:
186:
185:
171:
166:
162:
156:OTRS pending
147:
141:OTRS pending
134:OTRS pending
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
449:Killiondude
272:own version
54:Ron Ritzman
372:WP:COMPANY
329:well-known
251:Blanchardb
172:Blanchardb
474:• Gene93k
189:per nom.
432:Kan8eDie
380:Kan8eDie
354:verbatim
337:Kan8eDie
321:assuming
286:Kan8eDie
267:feedback
257:- timed
232:Kateetak
178:- timed
126:View log
358:ukexpat
350:Comment
303:ukexpat
299:Comment
218:ukexpat
191:ukexpat
163:Delete,
148:primary
93:protect
88:history
409:Stifle
317:WP:WAX
187:Delete
121:delete
97:delete
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
478:talk
463:Note
453:talk
445:Keep
436:talk
422:Keep
413:talk
384:talk
362:talk
341:talk
333:this
307:talk
290:talk
282:keep
236:talk
222:talk
214:Keep
195:talk
167:does
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
472:--
469:.
335:.—
48:. (
480:)
455:)
438:)
415:)
386:)
364:)
343:)
309:)
292:)
238:)
224:)
197:)
159:}}
153:{{
144:}}
138:{{
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
476:(
451:(
434:(
411:(
382:(
360:(
339:(
305:(
288:(
254:-
234:(
220:(
193:(
175:-
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.