Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colt Group

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Group

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

Doubting notability. The article apparently is a creation of a person closely related to the subject, based on the contribution he/she did to Wikipedia so far. I tried to look up independent sources on this company because an employee also wrote the Hungarian article; but without success. The book they refer to [1] is most probably financed by the group, and is not independent. The articles referred to cannot be found in library searches. The rest of the references are company websites.

^{편지 (letter)} 07:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I am the author of the article. I am not an employee of the subject, though it is correct, I do have links to it. However, I am a great supporter of Wikipedia and respect for its ethos, and would never wish to go against its principles. In writing the article I went to great lengths to remain factual in telling the company's story which I think is interesting. I apologize for not noticing that the links to external articles were not valid any more. I updated the link to the Canary Wharf history page, which has been moved since I wrote the article. Unfortunately, the article on the H&V News awards website appears to have been deleted by the publication, as they are now only focused on the 2013 awards and don't keep historical pages on past awards. I have deleted the link. I believe that the company subject of the article is of interest and if there is anything I can do to address your concerns please let me know, as I would like to do what is necessary for the article to remain, with any changes that you may think are required. sonc08 —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few updates to the article, adding external links to independent sources, which I hope will address some of the concerns raised. Sonc08 (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems to be difficult for companies to establish WP notability, unless they are "in your face" dealing with the public, as retailers and makers of consumer goods are. As the article stands, I find it difficult to judge whether it is notable or not. There is no inducation of turnover or profit. It appears to be a provate company, but to have worked on projects in a wide range of countries, in its specialist field. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 20 April 2013 (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.