Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CATUAV

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 keep. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CATUAV

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Sure, it has references but I ask of all the inclusionists out there in AfD land "Why should this article be in an encyclopaedia?". It is a contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusionists would of course respond to your question with "Why should this article not be in an encyclopedia". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has proven its notability with the fact that has been pioneer using UAV in some civil apps in the European market. Furthermore it has received some international and important prizes that give credit to this. Everything is demonstrated with the proper references. User:Jsalvador4 —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Has references, particularly the coverage in El 9 Nou and Avion Revue, ergo is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and sourced article. Notable as well. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... the over-reliance on self-published sources needs to be addressed (in lieu of 1 external link to the company's website) but has sufficient 3rd party sources to pass wp:gng. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced and notable. User Talk:Willdude123 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at that article by the BBC (a national/international level news outlet) covering some of the technology they're working with. Add in the other references and you'll find that this is clearly a note worthy article. To Alan Liefting, AfD is for considering the removal of articles that certainly shouldn't be on Wikipedia, not considering what articles should be kept. That's a policy topic, and moreover a pillar topic. Lord Arador (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true. There is no clear policy (only a guideline at WP:COMPANY) so we have to fight it out at the AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious spam example. This single purpose account has been created to promote the company CATUAV in the English, Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias. In ca:wiki and es:wiki the article has also been nominated for deletion. 62.82.198.2 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) By the way, in this link you can find information in catalan language about the amount of people working for this company: four (quatre treballadors). Would you call this a notable company?[reply]
- Thanks for doing that thorough research. It makes the case for deletion even stronger that I thought. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my first article and I am trying to collaborate in the wiki, however i have not found any kind of help, only people complaining... I have also extended the UAV article in the Spanish wiki, so this articles are not my only work...I would like to get real help in modifying those article, not only complaints. I would like to collaborate in the wiki however I’m finding it quite discouraging if there is so much trouble in doing it. Thank you.User:Jsalvador4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.243.114 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I can sympathise with you. I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time but I still don't know my way around. The bureaucratic systems and editors must make it a nightmare for newbies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case it is more than probable that the user who created this article in three different languages (Jsalvador4) is promoting his own company. If the company is relevant enough as to have an article in Wikipedia, he should wait for someone else to write it instead of doing it himself. 62.82.198.2 (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see this as spam. The description may need a little condensation and adjusting, but that's an editing question (using bullet points for the features is not encyclopedia style, for example). As such things go, this is a fairly good start. Since the company is notable, as shown by the sources, it does not matter who wrote it. it's enough that we review it and edit it. We still do have the principle that anyone can edit, and a good thing too, or we'd lose the opportunity to have articles on many notable commercial products and firms--and many non-commercial organizations also. Even if it's COI, COI editing is permitted, though people's first attempts normally need some further work done on them.We are making at attempt to provide such helps, see for example WP:WikiProject Cooperation. We may need to publicize the availability of people to offer assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, any help improving the article and giving it an encyclopedia style is welcome. Thank you to those that are collaborating.--Jsalvador4 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 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.