Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polisport Group


 * 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. There is no consensus that the sources are appropriate for notability. The article will be moved to Polisport per the suggestion by Comte0. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Polisport Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This Portuguese company manufactures plastic parts for vehicles and I believe it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Formerly PRODded eight months ago, but the creator, a one-purpose CoI editor, removed the PROD notice without taking any action. This annoyed me when I came across the article while "new" page patrolling, because I don't like to see companies getting away with using Wikipedia for free advertising space. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: One source was deleted from the article : from the Jornal de Negócios, which look like WP:RS to me. Comte0 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Yup, all the sources appear to be excluded by WP:NCORP - interviews, based on press release, routine stuff/announcements etc etc. Nothing I can find either on searching gbooks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to polisport Jornal de Negócios qualified it as one of the enterprises leader of the two-wheels sector among with the source above. Expresso has an articlewhich state they export to 65 countries. Público tells it's the world leader on bicycle chairs for children . That should be enough. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill manufacturer, fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Comteo, that satisfy WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, , Just FYI, most references pass GNG but only a small proportion of those pass the criteria for establishing notabilty. For example, the NYT might publish an interview with the CEO, verbatim. Yeah, source passes GNG! But that source fails (at least one) criteria for establishing notability WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There are different standards applied to sources that establish notability from sources that you can use to use as citation for facts and information within an article. Please list here which of the sources you have identified above meets the criteria for establishing notability. If there are two sources, I'll change my !vote.  HighKing++ 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is WP:N specifically WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are precisely for determining notability based on the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the case of companies WP:CORPDEPTH combines with GNG to effectively raise the GNG notability bar inorder to deter promotion and spam which is most common in companies pages. Using sources in articles is covered by WP:V. Regarding these references I will respond tomorrow or the next day, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Also be aware of ORGIND as articles that rely on company-produced information and data also fail to meet the criteria. A rule of thumb is to examine the source to see if there is sufficient intellectually independent opinion. A red flag are articles that, while still reporting accurately, rely on the company-producted information and you will often notice this in articles that contain clauses such as "According to the company" or "Jeff, the CEO, says their product is the cheapest", etc, or a claim will be made such as "this company produces the most widgets for under-12s" but no source is included.  HighKing++ 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have struck keep vote as was unable to google translate the longer references beyond the read further button. The other references did not appear to be significant content and/ or did not seem independent Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I found don't say where what they say come from. I've left a note on the portuguese wikipedia Village pump for further advice. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2018 (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.