Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munke Mølle


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn -- per nominator's keep statement at bottom. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Munke Mølle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article seems to only exist to promote the company. The article is also wholly dependent on one source which is the company's website. I believe this fails the GNG for companies.  CatcherStorm    talk   17:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. While WP:VERYOLD is not an argument for keeping, sources are, and this company, established in 1135, can be sourced well passed the requirements of WP:GNG as due diligence very quickly should have revealed. I do not think the editor,, who has been editing on Czech Wikipedia since 2008 intended this article to be promotional, but that is a summountable problem, and I have copy-edited slightly and sourced the article to some extent. The argument that The article is also wholly dependent on one source which is the company's website. is wrong in two ways: (a) at the the article contained two sources, and (b) none of them were to the company website. The external link was to the parent company web site, and said nothing about Munke Mølle, and has been removed, and the other source was an inline bare URL to a site listing purveyors to the Court of Denmark. And in any case, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Should nom wish to withdraw they may follow the instructions given at WP:WDAFD. — Sam Sailor 21:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - clearly notable company. The article could definitely need improvements. but that is something that can be fixed. BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- "the oldest company in..." is sufficient claim to notability, and I'm seeing some coverage in GBooks: link. Additional sources are very likely to exist in Danish. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sam Sailor contacted me about these articles on my talk page. When I first saw them, they were not in the state which they were, and if they were when I saw them, I would not have tagged these articles. It was an hasty error on my part. These articles should be kept.  CatcherStorm    talk   12:42, 2 February 2017 (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.