Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest Azeri Companies: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Strong Keep''' but the list needs citations and should be moved to a proper title, i.e. List of largest Azeri companies by (revenue? work force? market capitalization? - thats why we need a proper citation). The red links here are not a problem, if these companies are the largest Azeri companies they are notable and article should be created over time despite the systematic bias of Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/76.117.1.254|76.117.1.254]] ([[User talk:76.117.1.254|talk]]) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Strong Keep''' but the list needs citations and should be moved to a proper title, i.e. List of largest Azeri companies by (revenue? work force? market capitalization? - thats why we need a proper citation). The red links here are not a problem, if these companies are the largest Azeri companies they are notable and article should be created over time despite the systematic bias of Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/76.117.1.254|76.117.1.254]] ([[User talk:76.117.1.254|talk]]) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment''' So it needs a new focus, new title and pretty much rewritten. Sounds like a delete and start over situation. Dont take this discussion as doubt of notability of Azeri companies or that some sort of list of Azeri companies shouldn't be created. Its just not this one and there isn't enough there worth keeping.--[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
:'''Comment''' So it needs a new focus, new title and pretty much rewritten. Sounds like a delete and start over situation. Dont take this discussion as doubt of notability of Azeri companies or that some sort of list of Azeri companies shouldn't be created. Its just not this one and there isn't enough there worth keeping.--[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: No, it sounds like this article should be tagged for missing references and maybe with a few other cleanup templates. But it should not be deleted, and as the deletion policy clearly says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." [[Special:Contributions/76.117.1.254|76.117.1.254]] ([[User talk:76.117.1.254|talk]]) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:50, 28 July 2009
Largest Azeri Companies
- Largest Azeri Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Consists only of a list of red links and external links RadioFan (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep but the list needs citations and should be moved to a proper title, i.e. List of largest Azeri companies by (revenue? work force? market capitalization? - thats why we need a proper citation). The red links here are not a problem, if these companies are the largest Azeri companies they are notable and article should be created over time despite the systematic bias of Wikipedia. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So it needs a new focus, new title and pretty much rewritten. Sounds like a delete and start over situation. Dont take this discussion as doubt of notability of Azeri companies or that some sort of list of Azeri companies shouldn't be created. Its just not this one and there isn't enough there worth keeping.--RadioFan (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, it sounds like this article should be tagged for missing references and maybe with a few other cleanup templates. But it should not be deleted, and as the deletion policy clearly says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." 76.117.1.254 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)