, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious what I would have liked to hear from you, but I suppose intentionally ignoring people is the way of Wikipedia. This situation is obviously more complex than you phrased it - I am not 'having a go' at people for not writing the article, I'm having a go at them for having got it deleted for no good reason at all (and while you gave reasons, they're not very good and didn't really address what actually happened anyway, which is presumably why you're not willing to continue discussing it). And I've already given you extensive reasons why 'write it yourself' isn't really going to cut it as a solution. I'm not going to write it, and neither are they. Nobody is going to. Even though it is an eminently appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, according to Wikipedia's own rules (and a passable first draft already existed). Perhaps we just have different ideas on what's the worst thing Wikipedia could be doing. Me, I think it's this. You, well, you clearly put more value on, well, I don't know to be honest. Obviously you have absolutely no interest in the subject matter, just like Dave (despite his claims), and the others, so I guess it's not really all that important to any of you at all that Wikipedia's already poor coverage of this area just got a little bit poorer, for no good reason, and despite the best efforts of a subject expert to inform you why your reasoning was completely erroneous and was simply flying in the face of common sense (such as the very obvious fact that the list I linked above has several companies on it which are actually smaller than NIBS). Not that you can even tell for half of them, because the articles are so crap they don't even give such basic details as that (for the reasons I've extensively documented). Which merely leaves me still wondering why any of you think this sort of approach would motivate me, or anyone else who realises this is the way of Wikipedia, to fix/write the articles for you. You must really think people are fools.   17:46