Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Signal Corporation

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. no valid reason given for deletion. If therre's conflict over sources, ask for assistance at WP:RSN DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Signal Corporation[edit]

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

Reason JustInn014 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I have tried to get the article on track, none of my sources (malignant liars) were accurate. The article is a total mess, and I'd think it'd be best off to just delete this page. Also, please browse over any article written by "Evan7788" or "Evan7878". I just happen to find most of his articles are the ones least accurate.

So let's get this straight. You have sources from which an article can be written. You even wrote User:JustInn014/Biersach and Niedermeyer Co. from those sources (which certainly agrees with some of the sources that I've found). But you simply know The Truth™ to be otherwise, and want Wikipedia to support this, entirely counter to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy? Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that there's no reason offered for deletion. Simply looking at the contracts that the company has worldwide to build emergency warning systems (using sirens) for municipalities worldwide [1], it's clear that the company is notable. Frustration is a reason to stop worrying about it, not a reason to erase it. None of us are "keepers of the flame" when it comes to an article, nor is anyone going to be held personally responsible for what other editors to with it. Mandsford 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Uncle G, I do have enough sources for that article you linked, and this ASC article. The problem is, there's no way I can think of to fix up the article without just starting over again. It'd also be better for it to only focus on the ASC name, and not the other two companies which have that article I wrote. On the article you linked, Information is mostly from the former head of ACA, whom I've talk to personally. http://www.shorewood58.com/bios/BiersachJames.pdf About ASC, I have talked to two people who work there, and have enough knowledge to rewrite said article as most of the information on it just doesn't add up with the truth. To add to that, some of the other editors that I know of really got their information not from the people who worked there, but rather a bunch of infantile enthusiasts who were more than likely lying, and unlike me, don't bother trying to explain their sources. At all. It doesn't help there's too much content on the current article to handle for a simple rewrite. The WikiBots will flag me if I delete it all, and start from anew.

At Mandsford, I only wanted to upkeep the siren articles, as not many other people bothered ensuring the articles didn't turn into a mess, instead, vouching to complain about it long before I just did (gilramirez12, etc.). I see now the company is more notable than trivial, as opposed to what I'd thought initially. My only gripe with Evan7788/Evan7878 was that most of the articles he wrote turned out to be the least accurate and hard to rewrite, and I have caught him going around spewing nonsense information. Here is his very own website. http://sirapointinc.yolasite.com/history-of-tornado-sirens.php --JustInn014 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disruptive nomination over disagreements on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (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.