Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watson-Marlow Pumps
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Watson-Marlow Pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company, precious little news coverage, article started by company employee, no reliable sources on the page, and no significant sources available to support claims made there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The existing references, together with one I added a moment ago, are enough to demonstrate notability. Even a pump manufacturer can be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm surprised by this. Per WP:CORP, the press release (currently ref #4) doesn't count. #3 is a local (Falmouth) newspaper article about the prince visiting Falmouth; relatively little about the company there. The other two are trade publications, and just above the article text we read that the articles were edited by the editorial team -- which suggests that the origin of these "stories" is press releases by the company itself. That's certainly how they read. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the prince's visit in itself indicates notability. I included the press release (currently ref #4) because it wasn't from the company. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep (see below). The references for notability relate to an expansion programme which appears to have been heavily promoted: we have a press release (not independent, so does not count under WP:CORP) plus the Falmouth Packet - a local (not regional) paper, also failing the secondary source requirement of WP:CORP. WP:CORP also tells us to consider the depth of coverage - none of the articles says anything about the company per se, just that it was expanding and visited by a royal. We have no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Notability established the usual way. I see no reason to discount the usual standards here. Just because it's about a commercial organisation doesn't mean it's spam - assuming such blindly is a disservice to our readers. WilyD 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here is evidence that the company is eminent in its field - it's the world's largest manufacturer of peristaltic pumps. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But size isn't everything. Again, referring to the criteria, A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.... The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Where is this significant coverage? Also Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. - are there any such effects? From the info provided, I say no. If the company has developed products that have changed the industry (and we have secondary sources to attest to it) then notability is established. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please don't move the goalposts. You complained that there is "no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special". I have provided such evidence. In response to "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", are these 650 books "multiple" enough for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there's a difference between size and eminence. Having said that, your book hits certainly suggest to me that these pumps are widely used in their various applications. They are not about Watson-Marlow itself, though, but I found that they won an award in 2005 and they are nominated for an innovation award this year. Overall, I would say that the evidence suggests that the company is notable, and and changing my vote. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please don't move the goalposts. You complained that there is "no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special". I have provided such evidence. In response to "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", are these 650 books "multiple" enough for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (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.