The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply