Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bates NVH

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 delete. --Coredesat 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bates NVH

Fails to satisfy the notablity guidelines for companies. An IP address removed the prod tag previously. Hut 8.5 10:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the event that this page is deleted, can the deleting admin also delete the redirect Bates nvh? Hut 8.5 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as I previously said on the talk page, I can only find one Google reference which gives any more than the contact details of the company. As the page in question is the company's website, it doesn't count. Hut 8.5 10:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, it is a notibal company, with 6 branches, and although theres not much on the net when i was on the premisis i saw articals about it in a number of local papers.--88.108.201.235 11:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can you cite some? Hut 8.5 11:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment what do u mean: look in the Basingstoke gazet if u get it--88.108.201.235 11:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment can you give a reference of at least two seperate articles that mention Bates NVH and give non-trivial information? Hut 8.5 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, just from what i was shown in the office. A Basingstoke Gazette headline "Bates NVH opens Hook branch" and a 4th page story "Bates NVH, a boost to the local econamy?"--88.108.201.235 11:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this IP is now vandalising my user page in response to what I have said here Hut 8.5 11:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable law firm. NawlinWiki 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hut 8.5, you are now aiming low, you can't deal with the arguments so you have to attack the user, thats just sad--88.108.201.235 12:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I prod2 this, and I still support the original prod - non notable. A mention in the Basingstoke Gazette hardly equals notability. Even my five year old child has been mentioned in the local rag QuiteUnusual 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Searching the archive of the Basingstoke Gazette, which goes back to 1999, I find no mention at all of this company, contrary to the assertions by 88.108.201.235 (talk · contribs) made above. Furthermore, I can find no mentions of this company anywhere else apart from press releases and business directory listings. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — non notable enough -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- clearly fails WP:CORP by their own admission - "small solicitors" firm. Bubba hotep 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 29 October 2006 (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.