Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Insurance Timor Leste


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

National Insurance Timor Leste

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested speedy. Non-notable insurance company. A total of 15 GHits, most of which are either the company's self-published info or press releases. One mention in a blog (ref #1) of a free-lance journalist that may have made a weekly paper in East Timor. No GNews hits. No GBooks or GScholar hits. One GBlog hit (above). Fails WP:CORP. GregJackP (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The newspaper article is a valid reference, despite being on the journalist's website rather than one owned by the newspaper. This appears to be the first insurance company licensed to operate in East Timor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - per WP:CORP, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." [emphasis added] . There is only one source - and even if accepted as a valid reference, it is only one source.  Ref #2 is self-published and not independent.  It does not meet notability guidelines. GregJackP (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ref #3 is a primary source, announcing the political decision to issue the company a license. WP:CORP states: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content."  A single secondary ref doesn't establish notability, additional secondary sources are needed.  I couldn't find any, which is why it was nominated for deletion. GregJackP (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   Eastmain (talk • contribs)  00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.   Eastmain (talk • contribs)  00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. GregJackP explains convincingly why this article fails WP:ORG. The standards he mentions are important for articles about commercial organisations. If there are insufficient sources, the article runs the risks of being a promotional tool, or providing inaccurate information to a company's commercial detriment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. No secondary sources treat the topic in sufficient detail. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (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.