Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Continuity Institute

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business Continuity Institute

Advertising from nn 'standards' company (actually a for profit group), whose impressive at a glance website doesn't actually assert their claims of being important, or of being responsible for any kind of real, recognised standard, at all. Anon IP currently pimping his company all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles. Delete. Proto t c 14:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an amazingly jaundiced comment. I assume that I am the 'Anon IP' to which you refer. My apologies for not having registered: I thought this was not a requirement to comment, and I can only say that my IP was withheld by employers firewall. I am now at home, have registered and I am very happy to defend myself against your flaming. I am not an employee of, nor am I currently even a member of the BCI - to allege that because I mentioned the BCI once, this amounts to me 'pimping' all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles is ludicrous. The entry itself is not a good description of the BCI - describing it as a 'for profit' group selling business continuity plans is completely wrong. It is a member-owned professional body. Sneakysnaga t c 20:36, 16 August 2005

• Keep 20,000+ google hits, plenty of outside references - clearly passes the notability test. The initial nomination seems to have been made on the assumption that this was an exercise in self-promotion. This doesn't seem to be the case, as the above aggrieved response indicates. The article should be considered a stub. Dottore So 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This seem to be legit. They are listed on an Australian government website [1], and don't appear to do any of the things that Proto suggests. --Apyule 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.