Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeline

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 (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safeline

Vanityish article, written by a kid who's dad works at Safeline Cloveious 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently, Safeline is the world's largest supplier of metal detectors and may be notable enough to warrant an article see [1]. This article is not it. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would be willing to withdraw the nomination if there is a consensus this could be a good article, or even make a decent stub --Cloveious 01:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has potential and is notable.Gator1 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing worth keeping here. I was willing to start a rewrite with some info pulled from web sources, but I found at least 4 different "Safeline" companies/services:
  • [www.safelinewarwick.co.uk] SAFELINE; For adult survivors of sexual abuse
  • [www.safeline.co.uk] Safeline Metal Detection; world leading manufacturer of digital metal detection and rejection systems
  • [www.safeline.com] SAFELINE®; Simulator hardware and software for instrument pilot training.
  • [www.safelinekids.com] Safeline Kids; formor distributor of the Sit’n’Stroll.

Let someone with some source to reference start the article fresh. --A D Monroe III 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ditto above. Just start it over. -Haon 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A D Monroe III. --Icarus 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bragging and advertising.=Levarro
• Delete vanity and nn. *drew 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing we need to keep. In the future somebody can make an English Mettler-Toledo to go with de:Mettler-Toledo (which could include a section on Safeline). And, when that's done, Safeline can be a disambig page (mentioning various uses). But, since nobody is likely to do that any time soon, we might as well just delete this for now. --rob 07:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity; a useful article can always be recreated later - in the meantime this serves no purpose CLW 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and perhaps re-name to avoid ambiguity with other outfits of the same name. From their website (so take with a grain of salt): "Currently Safeline supply over 6,000 machines annually throughout the world. This represents a total of around 25%." This meets WP:CORP criteria. And remember "needs clean-up or expansion" is not a valid delete reason. Marskell 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Obviously a cleanup is also in order -- but that's not the point of this page; take it to cleanup instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup applies when there's some good parts to preserve. Deleting certainly applies here, when there are no good parts. --A D Monroe III 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean by "no good parts." Factual, verifiable and appears to meet WP:CORP. Marskell 16:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect prior comments are mainly refering to the original content which said only "SafeLine is owned by Mettler Toledo. How do i know? My Dad works at SafeLine Metal Detection!". I took out the dad reference, and put in the external link; but really there's still nothing there. Please, note, you and anybody is completely free to make an article after deletion. This AFD is just about the one-sentence article. A complete article, even a complete stub would be welcome. This isn't yet even a complete stub. Also, as noted above, Safeline is not a separate company, but a division of a larger one. --rob 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub. Kappa 18:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the company exists. That's all that matters. Kurt Weber 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, not exactly. WP:CORP is rarely invoked but the guidelines there are quite clear and I think this meets them as noted above. Only the second time I'd looked at it. Marskell 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, policy is irrelevant anyway. One should act based on what policy should be, not what it is. Kurt Weber 00:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL. Someone remind never to vote for this fellow if he winds up on RfA. Marskell 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
        • LOL! Try telling that to the cop next time you get pulled over for speeding! Denni☯ 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Is/ought fallacy. Just because you might not be able to get away with something doesn't mean it's not right. Kurt Weber 22:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
            • And just because you feel something is right doesn't mean you should act on it. Your comment above is in invitation to unilateralism. If acted on individually, Wiki, very obviously, would not work. Marskell 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Marskell, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Judging from the reaction to Kurt's Last RFA, there's slim-to-no chance of him ever making a serious bid at admin. Of course, that could be explained by the opinion that consensus in a shield for the weak (or something else from the Amazon review of Atlas Shrugged). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain: On second thought, there's nothing worth keeping, but nothing needing to be deleted either. If the article is moved, expanded, and this name is used as a disambig, that's fine with me. Since we're talking about one sentence of content, it is really no big deal either way. --rob 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 21:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stubbified This is now a perfectly valid stub about a clearly notable topic. Unfocused 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep slightly notable.--Bkwillwm 06:56, 19 October 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.