Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana (agricultural machinery)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Diana (agricultural machinery)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Couldn't find any secondary sources documenting this brand name. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστός discuss  17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see an issue of principles here. Wikipedia is indeed precious, because it contains literally thousands of articles about small companies (especially defunct ones) for which one can't find much by a Google-search (for the particular one, a quick search produced (in English) this (see D99 in the list), but if you try Greek (obviously more inclusive, "ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΧΡΥΣΑΔΑΚΟΥ"), you will find references here, here and here). Of course, one must provide some litarature for support, so that the reader can make his own research. I am not going to argue more, after all this is "exotic" information that I share without asking for any credit. It is a big issue, though, that we could be starting deleting about half of Wikipedia.Skartsis (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two books which are secondary sources are listed as sources in the article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Per book sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fine now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 29 March 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.