- 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Vectrus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vectrus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Similar reasons to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Diving Supply.
BowlerJasper (
talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 05:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ BowlerJasper: have you ever edited wikipedia under any other account? Its slightly abnormal for a brand new accounts first actions to be nominating two pages which were created just before the account was for deletion. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope. But these articles are obvious promos of military contractors. BowlerJasper ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)- The Atlantic Diving Supply article includes significant information about them committing fraud... How is that promotional? Also how do you know so much about wikipedia if you’ve never edited before?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"Negative" coverage is still coverage, and gives them greater notability than they actually are. BowlerJasper ( talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)- I agree, coverage is coverage hence they’re notable.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 21:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
There are tons of news coverage that are considered unworthy topics for Wikipedia. You're not going to make an article for some fire at a residential house or a car crash at a suburban neighborhood, are you? BowlerJasper ( talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)- If theres "tons of news coverage" then its probably notable and there are only a few exceptions where it wouldn't be. Individual residential fires or car crashes do have articles BTW, especially if there are a large number of fatalities.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't making a direct comparison, and I'm aware that such articles should exist if it warrants that much of notability (e.g. 2020 Beirut explosion). However, this isn't one. BowlerJasper ( talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- If theres "tons of news coverage" then its probably notable and there are only a few exceptions where it wouldn't be. Individual residential fires or car crashes do have articles BTW, especially if there are a large number of fatalities.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, coverage is coverage hence they’re notable.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 21:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Atlantic Diving Supply article includes significant information about them committing fraud... How is that promotional? Also how do you know so much about wikipedia if you’ve never edited before?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:GNG; significant amount of news stories about this company, even quite recently, article requires expansion rather than deletion Spiderone 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find any major/notable news sources with reporting on the subject.-- Bettydaisies ( talk) 22:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, expand if possible, but otherwise... :trashbin:. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨│ 📝) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Spiderone. Expand, not delete. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep passes GNG, AFD is not for cleanup. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: User:Horse_Eye's_Back have been posting the same message on all the AFDs posted by User:BowlerJasper, casting aspersions that User:BowlerJasper is a sock. See this and this and this. If User:BowlerJasper is indeed a sock please open a SockPuppet investigation rather implying that they're a sock. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Recommend Speedy keep. I've blocked the nominator as a harassment sock. Sro23 ( talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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.