Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugaboo International B.V.

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. Bduke (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugaboo International B.V.

Article has had numerous speedy delete tags added, regarding a lack of asserted notability and WP:SPAM. Author has added hangon tags but has not addressed concerns, and also has potential WP:COI given her username -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I placed an original CSD, it was more of an advert, may have even been copied from a catalogue and author probably does have COI, but the company is notable enough with numerous news articles and entries in baby shopping catalogs. The editor is also cooperating and trying to keep within policy. I am keeping a close eye on it. --Triwbe (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, but for the love of God change "mobility products" to strollers, baby carriages or prams. That kind of evasive language makes my blood boil. Assuming that the conflict of interest problem noted above is real, and that the article is intended as promotion or to manipulate search engines, your target market isn't searching for "mobility products". Your Wikipedia spam works better if you aren't evasive about your actual product line. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may assume that the editor is not a native English speaker, so we should cut her some slack? --Triwbe (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the editor's english is better than my Dutch. Good enough that "mobility products" seems a deliberate choice - and in my strong opinion, a deliberately bad choice.

The underlying idea seems to be that businesses are somehow limiting themselves or shutting themselves out of markets if they describe in concrete fashion what they actually do. What they make is carriages / prams; but mobility products could be anything from shoes to ocean liners. It's not as if actually describing your current products to your target market prevents you from diversifying in the future. It's a habit that makes articles read badly, and makes no sense commercially either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, and I'm no expert, but my understanding is that this type of marketing language revolves around describing the benefit of the product rather than its function. Thus, these are more than just strollers; they are products which enhance the mobility of the parents (when transporting their inventory enhancements during the course of economic or recreational activity, of course). --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable company, needs sources & cleanup. A move to Bugaboo International would comply with naming conventions for companies (suffixes like B.V. or Inc. should only be added when needed for disambiguation). --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the product article Bugaboo (baby carrier) is substantially more about the company. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (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.