Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurocommerce


 * 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Eurocommerce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Subtropical-man with no rationale on talk (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD) and a court edit summary "WP:DEPROD - disputed". Since the deprodded didn't bother with any meaningful rationale, I will just repeat my prod rationale, and add this: I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Obviously notable. Just go to the trade association's website, click on the our members section, click on any of the national associations, and go to their websites and search for "Eurocommerce". For example British Retail Consortium describes Eurocommerce as "our EU trade association Eurocommerce" and says "BRC is a member of EuroCommerce, our European umbrella association" . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And which part of GNG or NCOMPANY does that satisfy? Those companies may file the same tax form or use the same standard issue papaerclip, which does not make that tax form or paperclip notable. Notability is not inherited, so if notable company belons to some umbrealla organization, it does not make that umbrella organization notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The significance of this pan-European trade organization is clear from the news sources. Simple searches of the word "EuroCommerce", limited to various top-echelon news sources like nytimes.com, wsj.com, theguardian.com, etc., turn up dozens of examples of news stories that cover the activities of this important organization. On the other hand, the current version of the article reads very much like a promotional mission statement: flack phrasing like "EuroCommerce is the official European social partner for the retail and wholesale sector, and plays an active role in European social dialogue" and "EuroCommerce brings together the expertise of its members and secretariat to help inform and contribute to debate in a range of policies" is far from the ideal. So I think we should keep this page, but I would also support stubbing it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you show us some of those news sources? I couldn't and still cannot find any that satisfy the requirement of in-depth (not in passing) coverage, or that are reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and stub, per Arxiloxos.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as the current article's noticeable promotional tone is of concern and unless this can be immediately better improved, it's still questionable. Delete for now and restart if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  07:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above delete opinion was typed in and only 1 minute 40 seconds after the user's delete !vote in . Sam Sailor Talk! 09:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Though the tone of it seriously needs to be changed so it doesn't read like an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho (talk • contribs) 04:59, May 9, 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Sigh. WP:JUSTAVOTE has no place in the deletion discussion, through the rest of the comment above is valid - but as a comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ok then. My reason to keep is the same as what the people above with the same opinion stated.   Nik ol ai Ho   03:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and cut the quasi promo. The organization is 23+ years old, and there are plenty of sources that can be referenced, below is just a handful I have added, and subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources.
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (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.