Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account (User:Sistema Firjan), also responsible for the following pages (as listed by the account itself):


 * Industrial Center of Rio de Janeiro
 * National Industrial Training Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro
 * Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro (which is also being discussed)
 * Euvaldo Lodi Institute of Rio de Janeiro

By glancing at all pages, I'd say they are pretty much promotional material on potentially notable organizations created by a promotional account. This editor did the same thing at the Portuguese Wikipedia, I might add. Could we nominate them all at once so we have one single discussion? Victão Lopes Fala! 20:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Delete - I am marking this because no one above appears to have expressly recommended deletion even though that appears to be implicit in the above discussions.--Rpclod (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you are just the second to reply on my nomination... The Banner talk 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, all. I was trying to understand what you read in this article that motivated the initiative to nominate it for deletion. Reading the above, I came up to the conclusion that there are two reasons for that:
 * "find sources" ;
 * "At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account".
 * Well, regarding the first reason (not enough sources), I worked that out and included another 5 independant and reliable sources - which I hope will solve the problem. But with respect to the second reason... is there any? As far as I am aware of, Wikipedia does not prohibit organizations to edit. Further in cases when "a major cleanup could leave a fine stub". Can we do this cleanup together in order to keep the article? The same applies to the other article's debate, about the Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro. All the best, Bernardo Sistema Firjan (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is more the case that mr. Sistema Firjan is promoting the work of the company Sistema Firjan based on non-independent sources supplied by Sistema Firjan. The Banner talk</i> 13:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Non-independent sources"? I am afraid you know nothing about news vehicles in Brazil. I suggest you take a look at the websites below (which are referenced in this article) in order to inform yourself better, given the fact that you are looking forward to eliminating articles related to important themes of my country without the necessary knowledge to do so:
 * G1 portal: a news portal from Globo Organization;
 * GloboNews: an all news TV channel;
 * Monitor Mercantil: a traditional newspaper specialized in finance/economy that exists since 1912;
 * O Dia: a very popular daily newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, created in 1951;
 * Último Instante: a famous real time news provider.
 * There are other examples, but I won´t waste more time with someone who positions himself with destructive commentaries and is not opened to learn.
 * And frankly, administrators should limit your influence in Wikipedia, since your behavior seems to go against its policies.
 * --Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to partially agree with Sistema Firjan on that one; the sources above are indeed independent and acceptable. Victão Lopes  Fala! 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5 out of 22 (in fact 6 out of 23) sources link to the Firjan website. The rest I did not judge, as I don't speak Portugese. But with the company name abbreviated to Firjan and this article written by User:Sistema Firjan, some suspicion about the neutrality of the author and the article are warranted. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, you have all the reasons in the World to question neutrality, and I questioned it too. I'm just clarifying it so that nobody misjudges those sources later. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just performed a major cleanup on the article. I removed what I considered to be blatant advertisement that would require a significant rewriting to abide to our guidelines and left what I thought was important to at least let readers know what the institution is about. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your cooperation, diligence and wiki spirit, Victão Lopes . I appreciate your effort to improve this article. Do you think the changes you have made are enough to remove the deletion label? And the "orphan" label, which it is not? Many thanks, Bernardo.--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion is now up to the community. The tag will only be removed when this debate is declared "closed", which is normally (but not exclusively) done by an administrator. It will depend on how other editors judge the article. If nobody else expresses their opinions here, it might be closed as "no consensus reached", which will mean the article will be kept as it is now, but anyone can nominate it for deletion again anytime. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. After my clenaup edit, I think the article has become less promotional. Notability is now quite evident given the independent multiple sources. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#447744;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| speak _ 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: We need at least one more comment to assess the work done by Victão Lopes


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Weak keep - there's no doubt the new version is better. I still have some concerns that the same sources appear several times - multiple instances of coverage from the same source isn't considered "multiple sources" for the purposes of WP:N. But there are other sources there and while I don't speak Portuguese, the subject is mentioned in the title. I think, if nothing else, the "advertising" concerns have been addressed. Though the remaining COI is obviously an issue, it isn't a valid reason for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:56, 15 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.