Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MER MEC S.p.A


 * 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 to delete. The length of the debate does not diminish the valid points made by editors on both sides. Perhaps there are ways to improve the article that could be implemented? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MER MEC S.p.A

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination -- contested A7 speedy deletion, sending here for discussion. I'm neutral on this. - Revolving Bugbear  19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel this article isn't really in violation of anything. I mean, its not Advertising or unencylopedic. Let's keep it. D u s t i talk 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete It my not be advertising, but there is nothing to establish notability of the subject, the references establish that it does exist, but not what is notable about it.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It fails WP:CORP. Merely having it mentioned in a secondary source as a member of an organization doesn't make it notable: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. " Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthony.bradbury"talk"  14:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  06:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No secondary sources attesting to notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several references on scholar.google.com in, e.g., IEEE publications and in the International Railway Journal. They appear to be innovators and well known in their field.Pburka (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be an influential company in their field. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (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.