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. T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARES Corporation

[edit]
ARES Corporation (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)

Not a notable consulting business. Contested proposed deletion. References provided are internal, based on press releases, profile pages, or simply quote business personnel as sources. Google News yields press releases and routine announcements. No indication that this business "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take time to even read the article? This is a very notable business that is having a significant impact on society, science, and economics. Please take time to read the article, building a plant that will produce 15 million gallons of biodiesel fuel is notable in itself. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article when I nominated were: a link to a company website, a dead link to a press release, another dead link to an online "community" site, a local story about their failure to build the biodiesel plant as planned, and four more links to the company website. What I found when I looked myself was not more promising. I don't think I miscategorized the sources given. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have issues with the references, then you can address them through editing the page or proposing the edits on the discussion page. Issues with references does not mean the subject of the article is non-notable, that is causation. Instead of jumping to an AFD, recommending improvements to the page is preferable in accordance with WP policy. This is especially true when the article in question is 3.5 years old. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Jimmy Wales put it, we "attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something." The question is whether this consulting business with a few government contracts has any long term historical significance. I looked, and found nothing better than what was in the article, which does not appear to make this rise to that level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to do what your doing. You can find a small clause in WP:RS to discredit almost any link out there. This link may not have significant coverage, but others do. This reference, in conjunction with others, proves the company is notable. NASA is a very well-respected government entity and to be 1 out of 3 companies to receive an award from them causes ARES Corporation to stand out in their niche. The company is notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are standards of coverage that are supposed to be uniformly applied to all references. 2 says you, says two 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for 3 years. You need to work on assuming good faith. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Longevity of an article has absolutely, positively nothing to do with whether or not an article should be deleted. You have created or done major work on articles related to the company which are promotional in nature. Assuming good faith is one thing, but ignoring a pattern of action is quite another. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These articles being "promotional in nature" is your opinion. I mentioned that the article had been around for 3 years so that you would pick up on the fact that i'm not the original author of this page, which you still haven't figured out. "I worked on articles related to the company"... obviously. This is a result of me interpreting a WP Guideline the wrong way and branching out this companies products into seperate articles, instead of keeping it on the same article. "ignoring a pattern of action". I'm not asking you to ignore your insticts, but rather your inherent bias to that any attempt to work on an article must mean i'm associated with the company and must mean i'm trying to promote it. Which neither is true. See my previous response to your comment on the Avert Page, first attempt at a major re-write + WP's random article feature = This Bsanders246 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but you can understand when one person works on a series of article about a company and its products, there is often an attempt to promote that company in violation of WP guidelines. I've seen it too many times here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)
I understand where your coming from. It probably wasn't the best idea to attempt my first re-write on a company. At least I learned a few things about notability/reliable sources and the deletion process. Bsanders246 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (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.
More