Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzi Unicem

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 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzi Unicem

[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)

Article version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzzi_Unicem&direction=next&oldid=859752658

Non-notable business, fails notability requrements. References are both primary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beyond My Ken for inviting me to contribute. (The page history seems to suggest that I created the article which, though I have no particular recollection of it, seems perfectly plausible.) But perhaps you could explain why, having read the article, you believe this company to be non-notable? Which notability requrements do you think it fails to meet? I would then be able to form a view on whether it should be retained or not. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, WP:ORGSIG: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." There are no independent sources cited in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable to me, and properly documented after I added three inline citations.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the rigorous WP:ORGCRIT criteria required for companies. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question In what regard does this article fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT criteria, when the three independent references are considered? Doubtless there is more in Italian, but it is not easy for me to use those.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two are standard company profiles, which do not go to showing notability. The third has two mere mentions of the company: one in the headline, and one in the body, with no elaboration whatsoever. The other two sources are primary. All this is sufficient to show the existence of the company, but not its encyclopedic notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, easy to source — I've spent some time adding content to the article, and it should be easy for others to continue to improve the article. I've put a link to the original version nominated for deletion up top so you can take a look at comparison to current version. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 2 February 2019 (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.