Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expancel


 * 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   merge to AkzoNobel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Expancel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

We are not a dictionary of businesses. The article does not suggest that the company is notable - as far as I can see it, it fails WP:CORP. On a relevant note, The creator works in that company, disclosed at User talk:InkieMS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is not a dictionary of businesses. I understand that the original article was not verifiable. There has been some changes to that, partly by myself. My hope is that it will be possible to improve the article enough for it to bring relevant knowledge to the readers. InkieMS (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the article does not seem to satisfy the Notability (organizations and companies) requirement. Feel free to expand and improve the article so that it does. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would help if we could be shown some sources that are not reprints or close paraphrases of press releases. I accept that the Dagbladet source doesn't match that description, but it is only a news report of an incident that would have been very important to the workers involved, but doesn't amount to significant coverage of Expancel. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with AkzoNobel, the clearly-notable parent company. Roodog2k (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - has obviously recieved some press and reliable sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * which press? You've voted 3 keep votes in 3 minutes all with vague reasoning. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORP. gnews hits merely confirm existence rather than being indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect with AkzoNobel the parent company. A small division of a notable company. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 9 July 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.