Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgewater Systems

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Systems[edit]

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

just a catalog of their products DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company meets WP:GNG and previously publicly traded before being acquired. Here are some references [1], [2], [3], [4]. There are a ton of brief mentions which can help fill out content in the article in order to make it more than just a list of projects. If the article is kept, I am more than willing to do the article cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep company was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2007 and 2011 before being bought out, so it has quite a bit of coverage especially during that period [5] [6] [7]. The article is poorly written but shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- R45 ^talk! 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not well-sourced at all, but notability and such attach to the topic of the article, not the article as it is now. As WP:NPOSSIBLE reminds us: "The absence of citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable. " This was/is a public company with a ton of editorially independent discussion about it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company is notable, secondary reliable sources regarding the company have been produced (see above), and it passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. I agree that the article is not great, but this is completely irrelevant in the AFD process. I would take some time and brush up on WP:N WP:V, and WP:AFD before nominating more articles - this article is a clear 'Keep'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made some edits to the page to improve some of the issues mentioned here. mikeman67 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2015 (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.