Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear-flow
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear-flow[edit]
- Clear-flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-Notable company that fails WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just edited this entry in order to make it more news worthy for interested parties regarding the improving economic status of Cornwall. Please let me know if you have any feedback or there are any other guidence notes which will help me make this satisfy all requirements. Travis810 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article needs to be notable and pass the notability guidelines for companies - The speedy delete was declined on the grounds of the news coverage of the funding from the ERDF, however this a single event and I can't find the significant coverage of Clear-flow elsewhere as per the notability guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is certainly there in numerous publications and websites, businesscornwall.co.uk, convergencecornwall.com, southwestwater.co.uk, southwestbusiness.co.uk, in line with the way that the article has been changed to clearly define clear-flow as a company of note due to the investment that it is attracting, it certainly should be considered notable within the region and would further encourage growth and coverage of the region if included.
- I do not believe that any coverage of the funding in the local area can be called significant coverage of Clear-flow as per the above guidelines, because what you are saying by implication is that Clear-flow is notable only for receiving funding - what else is it notable for - has it developed a new processes ? what sets it apart from every other liquid waste haulier and disposal contractor in the world. Codf1977 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not call coverage of clear-flow in printed publications across the whole of the South West of England as local particularly, as they are also featured on numerous websites which people across the world can locate otherwise I would not be covering them in an article. This is a big deal for the development of Cornwall and it is clear-flow that has been covered in all the relevant articles rather than the funding. These are not primarily articles about funding, but the fact a Cornish company has managed to attract it by obtaining coverage in the media of it's environmental practices and the need for doing business in the right way which quite frankly I am in favour of and judging by the pressence of groups such as WikiProject Cornwall so are others.
- I don't think a company should be included for developing a new process unless it has a large impact and actually makes it of note and gains it coverage within a region. As written in the guidance, it is this notability which gets subjects included on Wikipedia. As said previously this company has come to particular note within the South West of England due to the way it has operated to attract funding to Cornwall and could be seen as a flagship for the region. This in my opinion is what makes it worth having on the site, I feel that it does satisfy your guidelines and think that other people would find this article of use with regard to European funding within the region which is discussed on the main Cornwall page.
- 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.