Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abena


 * 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 Delete Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Abena

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim to notability, with most of the article being a list of the company's products. Speedy was rejected. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and stubify. Looks notable enough to keep, but the entire Products section needs to go; it's WP:COATRACKed onto the article.  Would be good to have another source or two in the intro, but I'll bet that some of the ones already on the article are good for the intro and possibly History section as well.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which notability criteria do you feel it meets? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Not sure if the company's relevance is great enough for its own Wikipedia article... Rsazevedo msg 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs more than 3 self-references & one distributer catalog reference to prove WP:notability for an encyclopedia entry. Find the refs, save the article!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - no notability established for the company or its products Corpx (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The company's website mentions that "The group employs approximately 1200 employees and has an annual turnover in access of 300 million EUR."
 * I agree with lifebaka
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 19:30 2008 February 3 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is a primary source so does not help with establishing notability. Which notability criteria do you feel it may meet? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see a list of criteria for what makes businesses notable, but I do not think it is necessary here.
 * Please see WP:CORP Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that this company is notable because of the sales volume (the exact number can be contested, but look at the photo of the company's headquarters. A company with small profits can't afford a place like that) and their relatively unique line of products. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 03:11 2008 February 4 (UTC)
 * This seems to be original research on your part (e.g. guessing at profits based upon a photo) and there is still the issue that the source you mentioned is a primary source (the company's website). What is needed to support notability is a secondary source. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite the photo in the article. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 06:14 2008 February 6 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article content fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We need some objective evidence of market share. there is no way we can guess whether a firm that size is notable in the industry.DGG (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After 5 minutes of googling I find lots of sources but none as yet that are reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. The article isn't written with any clue as to how one could prove notability.  I'm guessing that the subject may well be notable and those sources out there but I can't say "keep" on a guess.  There's not a whole lot to the article so it's not great loss to delete it, or inconvenience to the writer of a new article who does prove notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 350,000 google hits, many of which are for this company ("abena diaper" brought 10,500+ hits). From teh website it was apparent to me that this company is a big player in Denmark, if not Europe. Stub? Yes.  Delete? No.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.