Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atos Hydraulics


 * 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. I'm sorry Emeraude but "they exist" and "they make a lot of money" is not going to cut it. There needs to be independent coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Atos Hydraulics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. Zero gnews hits. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete 100 million turnover?  Very likely notable - but if it still not demonstrated by sources cited in the article, then either fix it or delete it. If it's "that notable", then it will be easy to find them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 *Comment Turnover ≠ revenue. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I see lots of listings and trivial mentions but nothing that looks like significant coverage.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an industry directory. 100 million Euros in annual revenue is not an extremely large corporation, which explains why there's not a lot of references. Italy alone must have thousands of companies with equivalent or larger annual revenue. --05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the contrary, 100 million euros is a great amount of money and I'd wager that the vast majority of companies with Wikipedia articles have annual revenue that is a considerably less than this. We have here a problem that is common with articles on companies, especially thoe that don't deal with consumers: there won't be references in books or academic journals and little media coverage unless something goes bang. The only likely source is going to be the company's own website, which does not satisfy the need for independent sources. Someone commented that there are lots of Google listings and indeed there are. What's noticeable about them is that a large number are websites of companies who stock and supply Atos products and this is an indication of the firm's prominence. In addition, the company itself has subsisiaries in several countries across the world, making it clearly notable. The problem is one of sources, not notability. The solution is to tag the article as needing references, not to delete. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is a problem because? If there's no independent significant sources, then Wikipedia doesn't need to concern it self with the company; it's not like we're a directory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a problem because what everyone knows is a major industrial company is not represented in the encyclopedia because no one has found a source to support what everyone knows. It's nothing to do with being a directory. However, it could be argued that so many directory entries refer to the company that it is notable. Emeraude (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, being included in a bunch of directories would make *me* notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (↑ Statement of the blindingly obvious)


 * This page from the Italian Chamber of Commerce confirms that Atos SPA exists, with sites in Italy, China, India, Russia, S Korea, which is also what the company's own website says. Emeraude (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mere existence falls short of conferring notability per wp notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously,but it's a start to getting detail.Emeraude (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And Bloomberg Businessweek has this. Emeraude (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2011 (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.