Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhead Publishing Limited

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) Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhead Publishing Limited[edit]

Non notable company where tags have been removed and appears to be no more than an advert? Paste (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note from author on my talk page :- I thought I would try and add woodhead as thay are a useful source of scientific information and give a short description of who thay are. Sorry its my first page on Wikipedia and maybe I have copied too much information from their site and made it too sales like? How should this have been written? I have found quite a few institutions and organisations listed, which provide useful scientific information furthering knowlege not listed on Wikipedia. (CB216A (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC))Paste (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article changed out of all recognition, now seems fine! Paste (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me. Plenty of third party sources to base the article on: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Sure, the article needs cleanup. That's not a reason to delete it. JulesH (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a copyvio or spam, it certainly is a reason to delete. Read the deletion policy. MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/en/info.aspx?pageid=4 and associated pages. When I see such an article without a link to the corporate website, I always look for it & about half the time its copyvio. Try again, after looking a pages for other publishers to see what is needed. The association with the IOMP and the Textile Institute are enough to show importance. DGG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/G12) — if the author is not the copyright holder, then it certainly is a copyvio as DGG noted above. If so, it would certainly fall under G11 for blatant advertisement/spam. MuZemike (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I added a G12. — neuro^(talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references and removed the copyvio. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the revised version is satisfactory, and the publisher is sufficiently notable. Eastmain, thanks for rescuing it. DGG (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Revised version is just peaches, good enough HEY job. — neuro^(talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Dang, Eastmain, you did it again! MuZemike (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (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.