Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordeca


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nordeca

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently non-notable company. I accept that they are the chief GIS providers for Norway, and I can find plenty of websites selling their maps, but there's a distinct lack of coverage on the company itself. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — it is not notable Reza1615 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a keep after resent upgrade. If this article is to be deleted, most of the articles at Category:Companies of Norway, or any other country for that matter, will have to be deleted. OddMM 18 February 2012 17:19 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete per /A7: no indication of notability and no refs. Actually, the article can be squeezed t a single sentence like "Nordeca is a provider of SaaS leisure maps for hiking and boating known as map series Turkartserien, Norge-serien, Båtsportserien and Vannsportserien" without loss of content. The rest of the article is unintelligible spam. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete . There is nothing in the article that attests to this company being notable by Wikipedia's standards. It looks like it has been written by an employee or PR consultant of the company. __meco (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subsequent to work done to the article it now meets the notability requirements. __meco (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article writer has rewritten content and included references. Please help to improve! Runestrommen (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found several news articles about the company under its former name (from which I also created a redirect). I have added several of these and removed the refs to Norwegian Wikipedia and to the main pages of government departments and services, and done a more thorough rewrite. This included adding some info on the company cutting a subsidiary and an electronic map service, so the article is no longer so uniformly positive in content. I'm sure there's more news coverage out there; the company changed name more than once, and I only searched Kvasir and Google News, not Atekst. Thanks also to Runestrommen for a more recent NRK article than the one I had found. All the sources are Norwegian, but this is permissible under our notability policy and in my opinion the article now has sufficient independent and reliable sources to demonstrate notability within Norway. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with OddMM's comment about the fact that if this article is deleted, most of should be deleted. Per WP:CORP probably 90% of companies's articles on Wikipedia should also be deleted. Those, who doesn't feel comfortable with this fact, should address the issue on WT:CORP, not here. I would also note, that the situation that we have an article on company and no single article about its products itself goes against WP:CORP. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see why an AfD was raised, but the articles quality is now acceptable. The article describes a topic that seems notable (the company is among the leading within its field on a national level, sufficient independent and reliable sources). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with the latest additions, this article clearly meets the notability guidelines. Arsenikk (talk)  09:58, 21 February 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.