Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coesia


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Coesia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a non-notable corporation. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, and so tagged. The current text is unambiguous advertising and the lead section is also deliberately vague gibberish and charlatan's patter: a group of innovation-based industrial solutions companies operating globally.  The article claims that this is some kind of conglomerate and some businesses within it may in fact be notable; it was formed around G.D, a legendary motorcycle company established in Bologna in 1923.  But the notable business is not this name, and none of this text is acceptable.  Note that the "Business Week" reference is in fact a directory.  The other references are to a linkedln profile and an apparently deleted article on the Italian Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (if not speedied first - Smerdis of Tlön makes a good case for it) No evidence of notability, promotional tone. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - but not speedily - give the creators a chance to make a case. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am still waiting after three days. Give them another three days. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - For sure the article's tone, and sourcing are terrible. This article indicates the company has rather large sales.  I have a sneaking suspicion they may be notable, but am unable to find sources, perhaps because they are privately held.  Or perhaps they are better known under specific operating names like Volpak.  I'm not going to advocate deletion, but I cannot find sources that would support keeping the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (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.