Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercury Precision Components

: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 delete. Tone 17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Mercury Precision Components]]=

{{AFD help}}

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Mercury Precision Components}})

Current sourcing includes three listings in on-line directories (not significant coverage), and one press release (not independent) - these don't meet the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP. I can't find any better sourcing on-line, so am assuming that the company fails WP:NCORP, unless a Malaysian speaker can find anything reliable on them in that language that I'm not seeing? (Also note that the article is fairly promotional in how it describes the company, and contained a significant chunk of COPYVIO to begin with - those issues could be fixed though if we could find decent sourcing.) GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment (article author). Dear GirthSummit (blether), indeed you are right. I have missed out some very reliable and important source as I have accidentaly added to much information for the Memorandum Of Understandings section of my article.The company is a real company and It was right for you to remove that chunk of information. To be honest those information was not needed and I just added it to make the article more detailed. I have learned my mistakes not to write too much when there is not much citations. However, the sentence that you left out is well sourced. So I would like to nrequest you remove the deletion tag since the problem has been solved while I find more sources to add on to my article in the future.

:*Mathewanderson7232 Thanks for the note, but to be clear, that information was removed no because it was excessive, but because it was a copyright violation - it was a direct copy/paste of a press release. Whether the company is real is not in doubt, the question I have raised is about whether it is notable, according to our guidelines at WP:NCORP. I can't remove the deletion tag now that this discussion has started - the community will review the article and its sourcing, and discuss whether or not it should be deleted. If you want the article to be retained, the best thing you can do would be to remove the promotional language (e.g. 'It is one of the nations most advanced and precision manufacturing company'), and find reliable sources that give significant coverage - see my concerns about the current sources above, and take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH to find out more about the sort of sourcing we'd be looking for. GirthSummit (blether) 16:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

::*Dear GirthSummit (blether), I have followed your advice and have removed the promotional language and have added new sources. Please do review my article again and I hope its Wiki worthy. Mathew Anderson (talk)

:::*The text is less promotional now, but the source you added is another entry in a business directory - the article now has four of them, plus a press release - please do read WP:NCORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH, which discusses the type of source that is needed in detail. GirthSummit (blether) 06:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • DELETE - This really is a directory listing. In searching for English-language references, I could find none that weren't listings, and most of those seemed to be duplicates. I don't believe that it meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. ogenstein (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Understood Dear GirthSummit (blether), I will follow as you adviced but I just need a little more time as I have some magazines to add as sources. Please do not delete the article as references are on its way. Mathew Anderson (talk)
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because it lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV demonstrating notability or importance. The sources and the article itself are basically just a series of directory listings. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2019 (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.