Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminij


 * 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. WjBscribe 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aluminij

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think it is an ad to promote a company I really do not think it is usefull information Jdchamp31 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)'


 * It's a company worth over 150 million convertible marks, one of the most successful in Bosnia. It's significant both economically (in the post-war recovery) and politically/culturally (as largest employer of Croats in BiH). I certainly did not create it as an ad. --Thewanderer 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless some attribution is provided. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep, Redvers has written it to satisfy requirements. Good show. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I would be satisfied with some figures for market share. DGG 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article and provided sources, inline refs, more info and less advertising. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the article's stubby, it will be expanded. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note, that I originally removed the speedy tag from this which claimed it was "blatant advertising", a criterion clearly failed by the article in all its revisions. It should probably be kept, but I say this based principally on reading the English version of their website which I accept does not usually qualify as an independent source. Searching for the reliable sources has proven hard since they are as a rule not in English. This fact shouldn't stop us carrying an article on it if it is notable, since a tag for sources would, we hope, eventually be answered by a relevant-language speaking editor who can accurately assess what a Google search returns. (NB. I say this in reference largely to the non-rewritten article which included a number of claims relating to success and awards which I found difficult to locate English-language confirmation of. They have now been removed, but we should bear in mind that the claims may nevertheless be true). Splash - tk 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good sources. Ab  e  g92   We are all Hokies!  19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is sourced, neutral and notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:58, 26 April 2007 (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.