Pan Britannica Industries : There was no consensus in AfD in September, it had very low engagement.  I hope this time we can find a consensus either way.  Boleyn ( talk ) 23:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Science , Environment ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The closing admin on the recent AfD had suggested a Talk page discussion about possible WP:ATD changes as the next step, but that didn't happen.  So trying to pick up that discussion here...  Despite some news coverage of the compan'y former chair, it does seem that the subject lacks WP:NCORP notability outside of the former plant's possible consequential pollution and health risk; Eastmain and Star Mississippi had proposed reorientating the article to that topic.  The lingering concerns (most recently in the OU coursebook exercise and in the local media coverage of the building of retirement homes there) may be just enough for that.  Alternatively, a merge/redirect to Waltham Abbey might be possible, though brownfield sites with possible health concerns are not unusual and the merge could be WP:UNDUE .  A 3rd alternative might be a redirect to Baby Bio , though that would lose the trace of the academic references concerning the possible cancer cluster.  AllyD ( talk ) 11:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping @ AllyD .  I think there's merit to keeping the info, but rather indifferent to whether it's the cancer cluster @ Eastmain and I discussed, the Abbey site you reference.  Baby Bio seems personally less a fit to me.  Star Mississippi 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The company doesn't pass the notability requirements of NCORP but doesn't need to.  The stronger criteria in WP:ORGCRIT are there to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.  The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.  As the name Pan Britannica Industries and PBI are no longer in use commercially (PBI Home and Garden was wound up in 2015) coverage in this article cannot benefit it.  The AtDs in this case don't sit well in any of the target articles suggested.  There's just about enough here for a GNG pass.  The company's no longer in operation, so the article is a brief resume of its history with no promo/advertising concern.  Therefore, I'm willing to judge it for notability using the GNG as set out under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and the cancer issue allows it to pass.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples The logic you have applied does appear sound, and it furthermore solves the issue of no obvious redirect/merge.   It may fall over if the PBI name is reincarnated in some way, but in that future case then WP:ORGCRIT can be applied at that point.   Regarding PBI Home and Garden being wound up in 2015 - this is not stated in the article.   Do you have a citation for this?  Resonant Dis tor tion 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Companies House: [33] Rupples ( talk ) 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks - Keep .  Resonant Dis tor tion 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 22 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus