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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Mar

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination: a representative of the company has requested deletion of the article due to the potential for vandalism. The company is small and may possibly not meet the requirements of WP:ORG.

The history of the article shows that it has quite probably been edited in a promotional manner by a representative of the company. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This search would appear to indicate that this company is probably notable, although I'm not interested enough to wade through the results to confirm it for certain. Did this request come via OTRS? Are you (Tom) at liberty to reveal any more about any reason given other than the potential for vandalism? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request did not come via OTRS. The person who emailed me has not given any reason for deletion beyond their unhappiness over past vandalism and the future potential for vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the history it seems that the vandalism happened over a few days at the beginning of October and came from unregistered editors. If it continues then shouldn't it be dealt with by semi-protection, rather than deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, that's broadly my view. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism happened for a period from September through October and only stopped when the page was blocked and the unregistered user blocked. In addition vandalism was undertaken from more than one unregistered user (IP address) but never by registered users - clearly an attempt to be anonymous. The page was vandalised with false and misleading information and possible breach of confidential information of a private company. This misleading information now exists no where publicly other than in the Wikipedia page history. There is no value to this information and it may in fact be damaging were someone in fact to rely on it. It also breaches the neutrality guidelines for Wikipedia. the page is an orphan, has been edited in a very minor manner prior to this recent period (so question its value to the community) and the organisation does not have a significant amount of coverage in secondary sources - those that do exist are usually resellers of the organisation's products. It appears that the page was originally posted to be promotional rather than for another notable reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't really establish notability and promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable and no references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm skipping the ususal WP:GNG review. For this topic, I think it reasonable to delete until an editor desires to develope an article on the topic using reliable sources. If the representative of the company would like me to write such an article, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - am inclined to agree with Uzma. Notability is questionable anyway as is general encyclopaedic value. Any kept page would probably require a history purge, lest the legal guys get a complaint (it sounds like the editor above is suggesting non-free-use information was posted by someone who confirmed, by posting, that they had a right to release the information which was not the case). Though not a BLP, the size of the company suggests WP:HARM might come into play given the close connection some "LP"s might have to the subject. On balance, there seems no reason to keep it for the sake of keeping it. Uzma's offer to produce a new article (post-deletion) seems eminently "good faith" in nature. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.