Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decision: Rio Investments


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Decision: Rio Investments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant promo, user Sistema Firjan promoting the works of Sistema Firjan The Banner talk 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear The Banner talk : this article is not promotional, but a presentation of the document "Decision: Rio Investments", with 15 references (2 of them linking to the studies themselves and the other 13 to reliable news vehicles). Its structure is consistent with this same purpose, consisting of introduction (annual survey about investment trends), the parts that comphreend the study (summary, study and map, with a practical example on investment intentions to facilitate the understanding) and, finally, two case studies (to ilustrate what it is as a whole). Although you are interested in "local history, mainly from county Clare (Ireland) and Groningen (The Netherlands), Irish traditional music and genealogy", as stated in your User Page, remember that this article aims at entrepreneurs that are interested in investing in Rio de Janeiro state. If you were one of them, you would certainly want to read an article like that. And even more: to have access to those documents. Perhaps you have seen a word or sentence that gave you the impression of a promotional writing. If it was the case, please, let me know where it is and I shall improve it. Best, --Sistema Firjan (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for stating this clear that the purpose of this article is advertising en promotion: (...) remember that this article aims at entrepreneurs that are interested in investing in Rio de Janeiro state.. The Banner talk 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, every article in WP or in any enciclopedia is there to be searched and read by people with specific interests. I though this was already clear. This one we are debating about has a clear economic appeal. That is why it is classified under categories such as "Economy in Brazil", "Finance" and "Investment". The same way, your article Bon Appétit (restaurant) is aiming at people that want to eat in a restaurant. Would that allow me to classify your article as "advertising en promotion", even if you write it is "a fine dining restaurant that received one Michelin star from 2008 up until now" and cite only one independent source among two? Really, it is hard to understand what you think if you just keep labeling the texts I write instead of contributing to their improvement. --Sistema Firjan (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear, you have no clue what an encyclopaedia is. The Banner talk 18:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, do you have any positive contribution? This discussion is not productive. Enciclopedia = "A comprehensive reference work (often spanning several printed volumes) with in-depth articles (usually arranged in alphabetical order, or sometimes arranged by category) on a range of subjects, sometimes general, sometimes limited to a particular field." (Wikitionary).--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have nothing positive for you. Just WP:NOTADVERTISING. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete I don't speak the language, but many of the sources presented have long strings in common, making me think that this is a regurgitation of a press release (possibly in combination with a newswire report). Most of the coverage appears to be on the numbers in the report not the report itseld (methodology, reliability, etc). In short; there are no obviously reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete. Violates WP:SECONDARY as the secondary sources cited don't establish the publication's notability but instead simply discuss the Rio economy. However, Sistema FIRJAN has a significant number of secondary sources and might warrant an article, which could cover the "Decision: Rio Investments" publication. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - What suggests that the survey itself is notable? --Rpclod (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (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.