Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluegrass companies

:{{la|Bluegrass companies}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bluegrass_companies Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Bluegrass companies}})

Originally proposed for deletion for non-notability but tag removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Ifnord (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I dont understand the process but I will help in any possible way to save this page, this company really helped us out in Greenville al and furthermore some of the work I used to do with them was definitely notable if you deam nuclear decommissioning important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.223.3.176 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• It may not seem notable to y'all but this company provided a younger me and others the best jobs in lower Alabama and really saved this community. Furthermore how are the department of energy etc sources not good enough? Is this how wiki works some guy can just delete something that had been worked on by me and others from here for three years? Who is getting hurt by this article? They helped decommission a fusion reactor with people from south Alabama what more could you people want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B11C:9DF4:9115:A6D4:A8EC:64AA (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I read in the AFD area that "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy"

It appears as thought this protocol is not being followed here, my stance is "keep" obviously i have contributed to the article however see the following link to google scholar which references the company

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bluegrassbit&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C1

bluegrass companies represents a combination of 5 companies that are owned by the same individual, this name has recently become dominant in the organization over bluegrass bit hence why it was used for the article title... look through those google scholar references much of the knowledge and protocol contained in those articles was provided by this set of companies, and must be deemed notable unless one is biased against the company for a personal reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

more sources:

ler.

"Given the superior performance of the concrete shaver, the Environmental Restoration

contractor at Hanford purchased the system and fully intends to utilize it during

decommissioning of F and DR reactors. Other DOE sites which have expressed significant

interest in the shaving system include the Rocky Flats Environmental Restoration Site and the

Nevada Test Site. The system would be used to decontaminate large pads. Service providers, e.g.,

WM’99 CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 28 – MARCH 4, 1999

Bluegrass Concrete Cutting Inc., are also expressing an interest in the technology and may

include it in their full line of services."

http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1999/30/30-2.pdf

"There have been several DOE funded D&D activities that are relevant to the dismantling of large radioactive equipment. A TFA report entitled "Melter Glass Removal and Dismantlement" from ORNL8 summarizes these various activities. These activities include the D&D Chicago-Pile No. 5 (CP-5) research reactor, the size reduction of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) Vacuum Vessel, and D&D work at the INEEL South Tank Farm in January 2000. Technologies used included the Dual Arm Work Platform (DAWP) at CP-5 (DAWP developed by ORNL), diamond wire cutting by Bluegrass Concrete Cutting, Inc. at the TFTR, and the Modified Brokk Demolition Machine (at the STF)."

http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001248/tr2001248.html

--208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." from the notability corp section on wiki, bluegrass has been cited by more than 3 government aka independent sources for items which are notable, i rest my case.KEEP. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also just watch some of the videos on their page https://www.facebook.com/Bluegrasscompanies/ it is honestly interesting stuff, maybe it is not notable? but I would really like to understand why if not, and I understand facebook is not a source just figured it may be interesting to understand what they do... I have read the notability wiki page and I have not seen where this is not notable as they are referenced in more than 3 scholarly works published by the gov websites where they are not a casual mention but part of the team that yielded the information the whole articles are on. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

::The notability guidelines are not arbitrary, they are applied to every discussion on notability. Besides reading those, I would also point out WP:SOCK. You may not create accounts or use different IPs in an effort to distort consensus. Ifnord (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

i was using my cellphone (sorry i can't control which tower it connects to) and i never claimed to be someone else or attempted to act as if the accounts were different people .... I have read them and you have yet to present a real counter argument, I thought this was to be a discussion not absolutism, where one party present no willingness to engage in discussion. --208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

if you can present a real counter argument against their .gov and other scholarly sources then go ahead and reason with me, I am willing to come to an agreement of not notable or notable but I want to at least follow the afd process as it should be done.--208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

glad to see process being followed correctly, looking forward to a productive discussion --208.111.114.126 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Would be interested in hearing some possible counter arguments against the scholarly citations or other notability clarification, after reading the afd guidelines that says that with no clear consensus keep is the default, I must maintain my position of KEEP. Obviously I care about the subject but just voicing my opinion nonetheless... --208.111.114.126 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.