Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trufab (UK)

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 no consensus so kept. -- Joolz 21:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trufab (UK)

Tagged for speedy as: "Advertising. Nothing especially notable about the company.". Advertising isn't a speedy criterion. Kappa 18:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have voted keep below Kappa 14:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: As the one who put the "speedy" on, I just want to say "oops - sorry!" To be honest, I sometimes can't be bothered to pay as close attention to the procedures as I should (and I still can't be bothered right now as there's just half an before the pubs close). Yes - I should have recommended a normal VFD! (NB: see also Trufab.) --Finbarr Saunders 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a fairly uninteresting maker of steel. Their (rather cool) website says they have 100 employees so they're small too. There's no Google evidence of interest outside various advertising listings and they don't appear to have invented any new machining techniques. Their site admits they "...want to become the dominant player" ergo they are not. Nn. -Splash 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We have listings of other companies , this is a medium sized manufacturer and the article is discreet and to the point. I would remove the address and if possible add the financial data to the entry --Machtzu 22:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 10 Sep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Companies are not necessarily encyclopedic and IMO this one isn't. Marcus22 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• As Splash says, most of the references to this company that searches turn up are corporate blurbs submitted to business directories by the company itself. However, because of the cited news coverage, this company satisfies the WP:CORP independent published works criterion, albeit very barely. (A brief search didn't turn up any other independent published works except for corporate credit ratings that were tantamount to directory listings.) Keep. Uncle G 12:57:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
• Keep after Uncle G. Excellent research, and now we can be sure in our minds that the article isn't an advertising puff piece. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, well done Uncle G for the expansion and Tony for relisting. Kappa 14:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 10 September 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.