Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest Azeri Companies


 * 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. No arguments proferred as to why this article is necessarily untenable. "Consists only of a list of red links and external links" is a cleanup complaint, not a deletion rationale. Skomorokh 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest Azeri Companies

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

Consists only of a list of red links and external links RadioFan (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep but the list needs citations and should be moved to a proper title, i.e. List of largest Azeri companies by (revenue? work force? market capitalization? - thats why we need a proper citation). The red links here are not a problem, if these companies are the largest Azeri companies they are notable and article should be created over time despite the systematic bias of Wikipedia. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So it needs a new focus, new title and pretty much rewritten. Sounds like a delete and start over situation.  Dont take this discussion as doubt of notability of Azeri companies or that some sort of list of Azeri companies shouldn't be created.  Its just not this one and there isn't enough there worth keeping.--RadioFan (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it sounds like this article should be tagged for missing references and maybe with a few other cleanup templates. But it should not be deleted, and as the deletion policy clearly says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." 76.117.1.254 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article does actually cite Forbes magazine as a source, though it unfortunately doesn't say which issue. As I don't have online access to the text of Forbes' back issues, I cannot currently do the research, but this article should not be deleted simply because verification is hard, especially concerning an area of the world where systemic bias is likely a problem. At worst this list can be merged to List of companies of Azerbaijan. DHowell (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no deadline here. We don't have to keep a poorly sourced article around because it might, someday be improved.  When that day comes, it can be recreated with proper sources.  Remember, it is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to the article to properly source it.--RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This should be covered by the List of ... article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced and unmanageable list ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:45, 5 August 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.