Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inglesina Baby


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that the article does a good job of making the company sound important, but there is insufficient substantial reliable source coverage to back that up and demonstrate notability. ~ mazca  talk 08:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Inglesina Baby

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Claim that "Inglesina is the unique company in the world, that produces prams with this particular design" is unsubstantiated -- both that it is "the unique" ("only", I assume) company, or that these pram designs matter. Article reads like an advertisement. --EEMIV (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 14:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a cursory googling returns in excess of 250,000 hits. Notability is asserted if not backed up. The article needs some work but "reads like an advertisement" is over-egging the pudding just a bit. Perhaps WP:SOFIXIT applies? Crafty (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS -- that said, searching for the complete phrase "Inglesina Baby" rather than just the two words yields "just" 29K -- and the first three pages are catalog entries and Wikipedia mirrors. I don't see any evidence of this company's notability, otherwise I would've thrown that in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough coverage from 3rd party - independent sources. I was only able to find 1 news story on Google News as shown here  and that one reference was only in passing.  Sorry, without establishing notability, article should be deleted. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for referencing., , , and  would indicate that they are well-known maker of high-end strollers.  The article is very new and tagging it for additional references would be appropriate given the ones indicate notability is likely.  Note also that this is an Italian company and sources may be available in Italian which I am not competent to look for. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry the references to the company are in passing at best. ShoesssS Talk 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - I agree that the sources I've found are weak. But they are indicative of notability for the company.  Given the newness of the article, it would make more sense to tag the article for notability, and referencing to give a chance for other editors to improve the article before making a deletion decision. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understand  ShoesssS Talk 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as plain advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as I agree with the nominator, this article talks big but provides no verifable evidence of notability, and news stories on their own don't provide this. It clearly fails WP:NPOV, as the sources cited are used to promote the companyon their own's products, rather than to establish notability of the company itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:07, 28 July 2009 (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.