Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reynaers Aluminium

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaers Aluminium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced advertising by own employee The Banner talk 10:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V as it is completely unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Overall, this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in the following non-English sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you give me the idea that you want to abolish Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Banner talk 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic meets WP:N, and a polished version of the article based upon reliable sources would benefit Wikipedia's readers over the long-term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes is boils down to this. See the original author. The Banner talk 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I added a COI template atop the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I haven't found many English-language sources, but it's likely that additional, non-English language sources exist about this company. Due to this matter, it's also important to keep WP:WORLDVIEW in mind. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NorthAmerica. Not a perfect article, but its soapboxing is at least toned down. Frankly, whatever the guideline says, I fear it sadly inevitable that pretty much all company articles (except perhaps Coca-Cola, McDonald's etc. that people come into contact with on a day-to-day basis) will be written by company employees or former employees. Doesn't mean they should all be deleted - just because I imagine most people are not so fascinated by aluminum that they consider it worth their time writing articles about it, doesn't mean that it isn't notable per se.Brigade Piron (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2014 (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.