Beagel you have not justified the removal of sourced content. There is no single item of content that would not also be excluded with your logic about the long history of the company - so this argument does not work. This is your own personal judgement.  As per the essay WP:REMOVAL it is preferable that good faith edits remain in the article pending consensus so I am restoring it.  You have to make a better case for deleting this.  Gandydancer this section describes activity of BP that is fairly unique (and also pretty interesting wrt to company's efforts to do social marketing and the like)   it does belong in article about BP.  Please provide more reasoning for your stance. Thanks!