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 WPREMOVAL 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 companys efforts to do social marketing and the like   it does belong in article about BP  Please provide more reasoning for your stance Thanks