Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britishinsurance.com

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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britishinsurance.com[edit]

Note I moved this to British Insurance Ltd as that is the company that owns the domain and issues the insurance. --Trödel 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to just British Insurance for consistency in style. Reswobslc 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extreme brevity; only one page links to this one; nearly-if not actually-spam. I say that it would be better as three sentences of text in the Virgin Birth article. Scoutersig 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Brevity and few incoming links don't constitute criteria for deletion, speedy or otherwise, for something notable enough to be newsworthy by the BBC. Further, the nominator's spam sensors need tuning if the content of this article is "nearly" spam. A claim that an insurance company insured an immaculate conception risk will offend far more people than it will ever bring in. That's hardly an ad. I thought it was funny. Make it a stub and/or add detail. Reswobslc 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Trivial, unencyclopedic news story. Company shows no indication of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- obviosuly notable as perhaps the only insurance company where u can insure against the likelihood of a virgin birth. Also the nominator should watch when accusing people of spam. Astrotrain 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I see some other non-trivial press coverage. [1], Also Burgess of Britishinsurance.com (owner?) is referenced in two articles, [2][3]. I think that satisfies my concerns for notability and provides just enough to satisfy WP:V. I'd recommend Keeping this one. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J.S. and Astrotrian. Notable as well as unique. --Oakshade 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick google search turns up that they are the 15th largest (2005) insurer in the UK (481 million £ in 2005, 491 in 2004) according to the Association of British Insurers (which by the way should also have an article :) should have an article on this company. --Trödel 16:08, 11 December 2006 (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.