Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LuxembourgForBusiness


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LuxembourgForBusiness

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

Declining deletion as db-spam and taking to AfD; some "cultural sensitivity" won't hurt here (i.e. U.S. is incredibly perceived as self-promotional, and a quick deletion might come across as denying Luxembourg even a little self-promotion) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) – Spam transcends cultural barriers. MuZemike 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot after cleanup. MuZemike 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've tried to clean it up, removing the puffery while including an attributed quotation from the agency's own mission statement. JamesMLane t c 07:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11). clearly promotional in nature and since Luxembourg is part of Western Europe, there are plenty of people knowledgeable enough to write about it. Not particularly suspectible to cultural bias as stuff from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but this is a different cultural bias problem. It's widely believed in Europe that we Americans have a blindness about our role in the world, that we believe it's always okay to promote the interests of the U.S. and don't extend that understanding to anyone else.  Since this agency is in part an initiative of the government of Luxembourg, I want to make sure that no one thinks this article was deleted without a lot of thought by some American ROUGE admin, and that we're clear that we welcome articles about all governments, and that this article was deleted it because the article admits this is a joint project with private interests, and we felt the tone suggested that the private interests were being self-promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with the G11 as LfB is not doing advertising for itself, but for a country and it's economy. It represents the foreign trade department of the Luxembourg government. Pst wp en (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a Keep. Can you find any reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, magazines, or respected web sources ... or at the least, additional government publications ... that talk about what this agency does? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep One can write a promotional article for almost anything -- it doesnt have to be a company. Unless there's some content for a real article there, it should get deleted. But this article is descriptive about the agency, not promotional, in spite of the unfortunate title. Only a stub, but as a government agency, there ought to be sources. DGG (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a little ridiculous. I'd say its notable as a creation of a national government. The article is very short, but there is no blatant advertising, it merely states that the company was founded by private corporations and the government to promote trade. The article itself contains no promotion of the subject, and the company looks notable as being founded by a government. I also question the good faith of the original nominator. The page history shows the article being speedied the same day it was created. --Pstanton (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the article was here for three days or three seconds; the same applies with the other criteria. Also note that the article has changed since the nomination and that even the nom is now leaning towards a keep. So watch it with the bad faith accusations. MuZemike 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All government agencies are inherently notable. In addition to this inherent notability, the agency passes the general notability guidelines. Here's a source from the Board of Economic Development of Luxembourg and a source from paperJam. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All? Including the Indiana Department Of Workforce Development, the Saskatchewan Department of Health, the Duluth Board of Zoning Appeals? I could buy that national-level cabinet agencies are inherently notable, but not all government agencies. - Biruitorul Talk 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all government agencies are notable. The three articles you listed above are red links because no one has created them yet. The argument other stuff does not exist is not a valid reason for this article's deletion. However, a causal search for sources for the first one, Indiana Department Of Workforce Development returns thousands of news articles that mention the Indiana Department of Workforce Development in depth. An article could be written for that department if someone had the time and interest. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I never used the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, so that's a straw man. 2) For the Indiana department: no, a full-fledged article based on third-party reliable sources very likely could not be written about that agency (or many others), which at best deserves passing mention in an expanded Government of Indiana article. 3) Per WP:N, notability is satisfied if the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Declaring, by fiat, that "all government agencies are notable", is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, not a directory of bureaucracies. Yes, national-level cabinet agencies are probably all notable, but anything beyond that really needs to show that it satisfies WP:N before we extend it the benefit of the doubt. - Biruitorul Talk 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. As a second choice, redirect to (and mention at) either Jeannot Krecké (responsible for creating the agency) or Economy of Luxembourg. - Biruitorul Talk 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Surely an agency of a first-level (national) government is notable. Surely will this not have been discussed in their parliament, which should turn up some results. Computerjoe 's talk 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary debates would be largely invalid for use in an article, given WP:PSTS. - Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 5 April 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.