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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:CORP Tan | 39 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have stated in the past, This Company has been in my community since I was a kid. They have donated incredible amounts to the community as well have developed and invented many new products.. This company is well worthy of a wiki article and I thought my admission meant the criteria perfectly. I did not advertise, I did not promote, and I did not put any phone numbers or anything like that. In fact, I included links to other water related company wiki articles of which I based the content style of my article on. If those other similar companies with similar wiki pages as the one I just created are allowed then why not the one I created?

If you have any suggestions on how to improve this article to your standards I will accept and implement them accordingly. Thanks ahead of time for your help if I get any. Mike810 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could not find any reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Company does not appear notable and very difficult to find hits about this company showing any independent opinion of notability. Because a company exists does not make it notable. Please see WP:CORP (and WP:OWN). In addition, WP:OSE is not usually a good strategy for XfD discussions. If this company is actually notable, let's just get some cites to prove it. I have no personal prejudice against the article...it just doesn't meet the community's standards.  Frank  |  talk  18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've left Mike a note explaining how he should improve the references. Let's run this the full period so he's got time to give it a go. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - non-notable company. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article was speedied a few days ago. I was then unable to verify key claims, including the claim that they do, in fact, produce the "Pure Sip" purifyer or anything but bottled water. Meeting WP:CORP is another problem (and a serious one), but not meeting WP:V is fatal. The creator was informed about the article's problems. Huon (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not Beleive these strict rules of wikipedia.. Just because their isnt a description of the company on the internet does not mean it doesnt exist or its products dont exist. This company does in fact distribute Pure Sips but only to military agencies. I put a link to a article on calco LTD which is water one inc (combined companies). It explains the "trailer" which is similar to the pure sip.. The wiki editors deleted the part about the trailer. This company is very notable, just not on the internet. Mike810 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually give a long explanation to this sort of attitude - which we've all seen many, many times - about how no one here has anything personal against you or your article; about how companies do not deserve Wikipedia articles; about how your perception of notability doesn't mean it is notable; about how Wikipedia's "strict" rules of inclusion help create a more credible, accurate, and usable encyclopedia (and remember, that's what this is, an encyclopedia - not the yellow pages); about how it's not just Gwen or I, obviously there are several other editors on this page explaining why this company should not be included on Wikipedia. I would explain all these things in great, patient detail. Except we already have. Apparently, you just refuse to listen. I'm done explaining. I set up this AfD debate as a courtesy to you, to show you that other established, experienced editors agreed that it should be deleted. I could have just deleted it under CSD criteria A7 and been done with it, but I thought you'd appreciate the show of consensus. But I'm done with it. This article will end up being deleted, I will probably protect it and any variants against re-creation, and that will be that. Good day. Tan | 39 16:08, 4 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.