The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Article was speedy deleted as A7 - company with no indication of notability. DRV overturned, holding that the controversies section constituted a claim to notability. [1], the version that was chached by Google, looks to show notability better than the version that was stubbed and deleted. Concern is Notability as defined by WP:CORP. This nomination is neutral. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
User Tesug has repeatedly removed entire sections of information from this article that are backed by valid sources such as the BBC. At the moment I am having to repeatedly undo Tesug's deletions of info every other day. If there are positive media reports relating to the company in questions then those should be added to the article rather than verisiable existing info being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invest-agator ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
User Invest-agator clearly has an agenda. Whilst old references are sometims of value, aged links to entries that no longer apply (the same could be said of various quality companies that have crossed paths with the BBC in the past) should be replaced to keep the article of practical value to readers needing up to date information. In terms of the issues raised there is a new link to a recently made video that clearly answers questions for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesug ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply