Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceres Biofuels

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Biofuels[edit]

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

I am nominating this for AfD as it appears to be entirely very close paraphrasing from the sources linked to after each section. I would CSD it, but I am not completely sure it is an unambiguous copyvio and have made mistakes in this area before. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CORP. Close paraphrasing is definitely a problem, but lack of in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources is a more serious issue. A GNews search finds lots of passing mentions. Coverage with any depth appears to come from this company's IPO. I can change my vote is someone can show better independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Coverage by Bloomberg Businessweek or The Los Angeles Times, although related to the IPO, seems to satisfy WP:CORP. However, if kept, it needs to be totally rewritten. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to keep as the article is rewritten. Beagel (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would rather see the article developed than deleted. It's an important topical area. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company seems to meet WP:CORP pretty easily, with coverage in the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. If close paraphrasing is a problem, the best option is to cut the article down to a stub and start over. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite apart from the fact that it would need almost complete rewriting to remove the copyvio and the promotional explanation of the technological background that should be handled just by hyperlinks, almost all the accomplishments are either minor, or in cooperation with other companies. Both articles cited above are just routine reporting of ipo price movements. Paraphrasing this close should be dealt with as copyvio, unless someone is immediately prepared to fix it. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I totally rewrote this article using sources provided during this AfD. I think that the close paraphrasing and corporate promotion issues are resolved now. Beagel (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved by Beagel. Sufficient notability for an article. Good work! DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 April 2013 (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.