Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bistech

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bistech[edit]

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

I find this article lacks creditabilty and seems to written in a form of endorsement of wikipedia will recommend the company than a usefull article for the general web surfer. simon161388 ( talk ) 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely unremarkable business, no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only evident coverage is a single article in a local UK paper. Factiva search shows an Australian firm called Bistech Pty Ltd which won a minor industry award, and a Singapore Bistech which wins the occasional contract. But not clear that these are the same firm as the UK one, and in any case the coverage would still be very thin for a standalone article. Probably eligible for speedy deletion, but the tag was previously removed. Seems like no harm in having the formal discussion here. Euryalus (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have a series of statements about the company and its corporate structure, but there is no indication of size (assets, turnover or profits). I therefore cannot tell whether this is a substantial company (thus notable) or not. If the Singapore and Austrialian companies are all part of same group as the UK company, it is potentially notable, but the presnet article is a mere stub, so that I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2014 (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.