Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsag Datamat


 * 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. L Faraone  01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Elsag Datamat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has no reliable sources or references and is written for advertisement. Tyros1972 Talk 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a machine-translation. which makes it hard to follow the substance (the idea of a firm being subject to a "totalitarian takeover bid" is interesting). Much of the article text concerns the long history of a parent company which may or may not be notable. But the subject here is the spun-off electronics arm which seems to have been passed between multiple owners (and names) between 1969-2011. I have linked the Italian WP article but it provides little in terms of active WP:RS. While the venture clearly existed, I am not seeing evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability in its own right; it is mentioned in the Finmeccanica article which seems sufficient here. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is not written for advertisement purposes but exclusively historical.robyc73 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.123.105 (talk)


 * Comment there are four references in the Italian Wikipedia article. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one of which is secondary: a Computerworld article which is no longer accessible. AllyD (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - References like that can 404, but still be found via archives, as I did here. Its why we do not delete broken links because it is possible to recover them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, ChrisGualtieri. From reading the Google Translate, it is a news story about the 2010 reorganisation mentioned in the article, union fears for jobs, etc. To me, that is passing coverage ("brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business") which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  20:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Stop to Relist!There are two people for keeping and one for delete,so close this discussion to keep this article.Robyc73 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Robyc73 (talk) has removed the AfD 3 times after being warned about it. He obviously does not understand this process, wiki and clearly has a conflict of interest. Tyros1972 Talk 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Robyc73, discussions on Wikipedia are not votes. The outcome will be decided by considering the strength of the arguments, not by counting numbers of comments. In any case, you are mistaken in the numbers you quote, as Tyros1972 and AllyD have both argued for deletion. Also, I am striking out your "keep", because it seems that the earlier "keep" comment, with your signature on it, was from you, despite being added without logging in to your account. Posting two bold "keeps" might give the misleading impression that there are more people saying "keep" than there really are. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing anywhere to suggest that this business satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are no references in the article, and the source cited by ChrisGualtieri is no more than a brief report in a trade journal of a business reorganisation. Nor have I found evidence of notability anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Considering the arguments given for "keep": (1) Robyc73's first comment merely says that the article was not written for advertising purposes. Whether that is so or not, that that does not address the lack of evidence of notability. (2) ChrisGualtieri's post, which very helpfully tells us that a source cited in the Italian Wikipedia article can be found in an archive, but makes no attempt whatever to assess the value of the source, or explain why the article should be kept. (3) Robyc73's second post is apparently based on the mistaken belief that an AfD is a vote. I would respectfully suggest to the administrator who assesses this discussion that none of these "keep" arguments carries any weight at all in establishing notability for the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (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.