Talk:Sintal Agriculture

Proposed deletion
I object deletion because I put source of the official company website and I am investor relation manager of the company. To check it out you can call me redacted. My contacts are also provided on the official website of the company. Anna Zubenko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go2anna (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You really ned to stop deleting the Proposed deletion tag. I have tried contacting you on your page, as it is considered vandalism. Jusdafax  15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the use of the prod template is incorrect. Removing it is not considered vandalism.  Please read what the template itself says.  If you believe the article should be deleted you should start the AfD process.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I had it mixed up with the speedy delete tag. My apologies have been made to the user on their talk page, and I extend them here also. Jusdafax  15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Advert and Primary source tags
The article still reads like an advertisement:
 * There shouldn't be employee bios (or they should be much shorter, a sentence or so).
 * The history section praises the company, and focuses on details that are unnecessary for an encylcopedic description. Additionally, it should be written in prose, and does not need to cover ever single time period in the company's history.
 * Most likely, the "key targets" section should be completely removed. It's 100% speculative, it is unverifiable outside of internal documents, and is really just the company's business plan.

Having written all of that, the primary sources tag is actually much much much more important. At the moment, this article has only 1 reliable, independent source, in the Kyiv Post. And that article only lists Sintal as one of the 10 best companies to invest in in 2010. Note that the rest of the "references" are all to the company's own website, which is, by definition, not considered a reliable source. At this point, the article does not prove that Sintal meets the notability requirements for companies, which you can read at WP:COMPANY. I haven't nominated it for deletion yet, because I could see that you were still working on it, but if sources aren't found and added in the next few days, I will nominate it for deletion on the grounds that the company's notability hasn't been established. So you really need to go about finding sources. I've done some quick internet searches, and haven't found anything myself; perhaps the primary editors know more or have access to offline references. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)