Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper De Mulder Group (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Prosper De Mulder Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally nominated a while back, although no improvements have been made and no sources about the subject have turned up. Page continues to mostly be an attack page due to a governmental inquiry that received no apparent coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As per my still valid comments on the first nomination. Dalliance (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And when challenged on them, you did not reply. Where are the neutral, third-party sources that confer notability? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied in the first nomination and I'm content to stand by it. Dalliance (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When questioned about those sources, you went silent. If you stand by it, please, to help build consensus, explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Company with important public role. However, the amount of negative detail is excessive, and the article does need to be rewritten. It reads too much as the negative equivalent of promotion. The nom. has made some definite editing improvements to the article, that have not been reverted, & should make further ones. In cases of articles like this or promotional articles, I accept deletion as necessary if NPOV cannot be maintained, for example, if there was a long history of reverted improvements,  but there is no evidence of that.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC) -
 * Keep the company and its subsidiaries have attracted substantial RS coverage and therefore are notable. The article has some pretty severe neutrality issues, but not so much that it needs deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made a preliminary stab at cleaning up the neutrality by fixing section titles and removing excessive details and commentary. More is needed, including ideally the addition of more non-negative material.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (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.