Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Módulo


 * 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. The lack of coverage in reliable sources was refutted by Northamerica1000. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Módulo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this company does exist, from what I can see it lacks sufficient substantial rs coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Tagged for lack of notability and lack of refs for two years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per the Google News link above for this AfD discussion, I added the first link listed in the search to the article, significant coverage in the New York Times that addresses this company in detail:
 * ...Other Spanish and Portugese-language news sources appear to be available.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – More reliable sources added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. If no-one can find any sources, then perhaps it doesn't need to have a Wikipedia entry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But someone has found some sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – See sources above. This !vote isn't particularly valid. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per availability of reliable sources, topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NA. Is that also your keep !vote up above?  Or am I (as may be the case) confused.  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck out my accidental double vote. Error! Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It happens to all of us, at some point.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage has been found. They had revenues of $13.6 million in the year 2000 alone.   D r e a m Focus  15:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, multiple non trivial coverage in RS meets the GNG every time.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:16, 7 January 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.