Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apulum (company)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Apulum (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the article's claims of greatness there's no indication that this company is indeed notable. No secondary sources were added in the past five years, and I haven't found anything more reliable than a collector's blog post. Huon (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Huon (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (whisper)  @ 23:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (natter)  @ 23:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - to be sure, "largest porcelain producer in Romania" is not necessarily the most impressive calling card, but this, this and this surely count as "significant coverage in secondary sources", while this, this, this, this and this may have some supporting material. If it were only local coverage, I might be more skeptical, but the fact that papers in the national capital (and all these links are from Bucharest papers) have given a fair amount of attention to a company in a fairly small provincial city does say something. - Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the sources listed above by User:Biruitorul. Furthermore, searches for "Apulum" in Google News archive provides a great deal of coverage, much of which is significant (e.g. ). Northamerica1000(talk) 02:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep due to the notability displayed above - though it's local coverage, there's still significant coverage in secondary sources and quite a bit that shows up on a simple google news search  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:53, 14 July 2013 (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.