Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertazzoni

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bertazzoni

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seems to be not notable as fails to meet WP:NCORP. Most of the references are backed by 1 book source which looks not independent enough. More reliable sources are needed. Online search won't help much. 多少战场龙 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG. I fail to see how this book by an Italian journalist and a New York-based publisher is not independent. In any case, there are several sources cited that show notability. Two of the best examples: [1][2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a commercial company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply as well as GNG. It is very clear that the book is a corporate collaboration and says as such on the 6th page, written by Paulo Bertazzoni. The foreword from the author also confirms it as such. The book cannot therefore be considered "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. The article in Review Journal has no attributed journalist (red flag) but in any case has no in-depth information about the *company* (exclusing the various quotes, etc) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Bloomburg piece also relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company and also fails WP:ORGIND as there is no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without being too feisty, this doesn't seem like a particularly close call. In addition to the refs cited already, I found several other refs that I think would support a finding of notability. See e.g., [3] [4]. And this isn't even drawing on Italian sources, which presumably have further coverage as well.DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DocFreeman24 FYI, the Forbes link is a perrenial source according to the Wikipedia. 多少战场龙 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, see WP:FORBES. Also the Trusted Reviews article is a printed interview from the CEO of their UK operation, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Based on my inability to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references listed, including ones from this AfD, fail NCORP. But it is a weak Delete !vote since the company is so old and there is the possibility that sources exist which are not online. Also, someone mentioned possible Italian sources and although I have not managed to locate any, someone may find some. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some reliable sources in English as well as Italian.Atighot (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm concerned about the independence of the book that the article relies heavily on as a source. However, from what I could find, I think there is just enough independent and secondary coverage out there to support WP:NCORP. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:42, 1 October 2022 (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.