Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fern Communications Ltd
- 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fern Communications Ltd
Borderline promotional but I've declined the G11 in lieu of an AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is definitely promotional. Its creator has only contributed to this article (usually a red flag), and it seems clear after searching that the author is personally connected to the enterprise. Anyway, notability is unproven: we have a slew of press releases/promotional pieces (a blog post from an oil industry magazine? unvarnished promotion on a commercial site?), but no in-depth independent coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: SPA is no red flag by its own and some of the given refs establish notability.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Too much notability and no need for an opinionated fact to believe it was promotional, just facts and truth on how different mannered users use it.--GoShow (...............) 03:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
- On Notability The primary reason that the company is "notable" is not because it is a big oil and gas service company that 'exists' and employs thousands. It is that the company's technology - the FRX-1 radio repeater - is truly innovative and unique. It is the only company in the world that produces a radio repeater that is a) ATEX-approved - meaning that it meets the European standard and is certified for use in a potentially explosive environment in an enclosed space. And b) is portable so it is possible for emergency/rescue workers or offshore workers to take with them, wherever the work or rescue operation is required.
The reason that the radio repeater technology has not been taken up by large corporations in the radio or telecommunications industries is that it is not a viable candidate for mass production.
All of the articles about use of the system in rail tunnels, sky scrapers, offshore or subsea tunnels demonstrate notability: the system made it possible for users to experience unbroken radio signals for the first time ever.
-On being 'Promotional'
The coverage in the trade press is not just in "trade blog posts." If the reference here is to www.rigzone.com or www.oilonline.com, they are established news portals that are read on a regular basis by those working in the oil and gas industry globally. They are not "blogs" written by individuals that simply paste every item of oil and gas news into a webpage.
More importantly, the articles listed appeared in respected journals in the oil and gas industry that publish technical articles about technological innovations that improve safety standards (including communications) and others. For example, the Journal of Petroleum Technology is produced by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, an international organization dedicated to engineering and innovations of interest to those in the oil and gas industry. In addition, Offshore magazine is very respected and features news of innovations, especially those that improve safety, efficiency and production.
Non-trade media coverage: There are articles about the company in non-trade regional newspapers and national business press, such as the Luton & Herald Post (UK), Business Weekly (Cambridge -UK), Lowestoft Journal (UK).
The reason there are not more in national newspapers or magazines is because the technology - a system that enhances radio communications for use with two=way radios - was considered by the company to be of greater interest to those who use the technology and work in emergency services and the oil and gas industry, than to mainstream newspaper readers.
This does not mean, however, that the company and its contribution to developing meaningful technology is not notable and does not deserve to be shared with readers of Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. User:sharonroe (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's customary and desirable to declare a conflict of interest if you have a personal or professional involvement with the subject matter. There is reason to believe that you do.
- The {{Connected contributor}} template can be used on article talk pages, in connection with any declaration made.
- A previous account has been blocked, cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 26#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fern Communications Ltd
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too much notability and no need for an opinionated fact to believe it was promotional, just facts and truth on how different mannered users use it.--GoShow (...............) 03:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- You are only allowed to "vote" once, so I have struck the one directly above. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The topic passes ]
- 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.