Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahl Mobile


 * 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. Clear consensus-- if it is too new to have sources it is too new to be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dahl Mobile

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about unremarkable company which makes no attempt to assert notability. Biker Biker (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is unremarkable with DAHL mobile that you requested it to deleted Biker Biker? It's a big Swedish company. You can see it in its website. I wouldn't make an article about it if there's no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.176.37 (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2012‎
 * This was initially put in a separate section, I'm moving it accordingly so it'll show up properly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And to answer the question, you cannot use the company's website as a source as far as showing notability goes. It's considered a WP:PRIMARY source. A reliable source that would show notability would be a source that is independent of the company and by a person/company/paper that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Blogs, primary sources, industry listings, brief or trivial mentions, and sources by unproved papers/magazines will not show notability. Since it can be difficult for new or infrequent users to discern between what is reliable or not, I recommend that you look into utilizing Reliable sources/Noticeboard as far as telling what is or isn't reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've tried several different searches in Google, all I've found is the company's website. Unless someone can find and show translated Swedish sources, this is a clear-cut non-notable company. No reviews, not even any English press releases as far as I can tell. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I, the author of the article have already improved the content of DAHL Mobile article to prove that the company is legal and remarkable as requested by Biker Biker, Tokyogirl79, and Lukeno94, coming from different sources and links that are not form DAHL. Please do not go on with the deletion of this article. Thank you! - OptiStar OptiStar (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't see how OptiStar's sources have helped at all. All I can see is proof the company exists, not proof it's notable by means of reviews or even first-look-type things. I'm still saying delete, as all I see is a primary source and some very basic company information. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have tried to find Swedish-language sources to assert notability but have not succeeded. No secondary sources seem to exist, except for allabolag.se and other directory type websites, which verify that the company exists (which was never in doubt) but not that it is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already included a refrenece that which is not a primary source but coming from an external one to prove that is legal and that is the most important one. The company just started in 2011 and do you expect that there are links or sources that act as testimonial for it? What about those in the entry that do not have a website or external references, why do you not propose to delete them? OptiSter (Author) OptiStar (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A company is not notable for being new and legal. I would say that your comment proves that Dahl Mobile are, as of yet, not notable enough to be worthy of a Wiki article. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 16 November 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.