Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romstal


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Romstal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has been marked as only primary sources since 2012. A search turns up some listings in directories here and here. There may be Romanian news sources, but the only news item I found was this and it gives a 404. Possibly a notable company in Romania, not clear if it meets notability within English Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some Romanian or other sources: here, here. press release. There are others that are paywalled. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some references to the article, hope this helpes. Bine  Mai  09:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches have simply found nothing better at all, nothing else currently convincing and although I would've frankly suggested PROD, chances are that would've been removed. By far nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by nothing convincing? I've added some Romanian and English language references Bine User talk:Bine Mai 12:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here are some sources (in Romanian language) that look to me like "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": Ziarul Financiar, Business Magazin. Razvan Socol (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Razvan Socol. G-Translate is failing me, and I cannot find in any of the articles (including the ones you added) verification for "biggest sanitaryware distributor in Romania and one of the largest in Eastern Europe". Some of the articles list the countries and numbers of stores (which are hard to quote because they are quickly out of date), but I don't see "biggest" anywhere. Are you able to find that? Thanks. Also, the "Businessmagazin" article seems to say that the revenue of the company has fallen. However, that was from 2009. Is there later information on revenues? LaMona (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For someone living in Romania, it's common knowledge that Romstal is the biggest sanitaryware distributor, but I tried to find a source for that and I found this top 5 (based on official data), which shows Romstal Imex SRL to be the top company in Romania for the CAEN code 4674 (Wholesale of hardware, plumbing and heating equipment and supplies), both as turnover, profit and number of employees. In the page regarding Romstal Imex SRL (which shows the same data as |the official page of the Finance Ministry) we can see that the turnover decreased since 2008, but that's kind of expected after the boom of construction business in 2007-2008 and the financial crisis in 2009. This turnover data is in Romanian Lei and applies only to Romstal Imex (the main company), not the entire group. According to the articles I could find in the press, the turnover for the group decreased from over 500 mil euro in 2007 or 528 mil euro in 2008, to 350 mil euro in 2009 and 330 mil euro in 2013. Razvan Socol (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Added some Romanian and English language references, company is notable enough. Bine  Mai  21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This now gives us three references; one is a directory entry, the other two are from the same journal, ZF Comanii. We generally say that directory entries do not support notability, and multiple entries in the same journal or newspaper count as one for notability purposes. (As per wp:n: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") By my count, a few more reliable sources are still needed. Can you find some, Bine Mai? LaMona (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a strong believer that if a subject is notable in one Wikipedia, it is notable in all; Otherwise, we end up with all kinds of cultural bias. KaisaL (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I added two new references. The article may now be marginal. I would not oppose it remaining. As for "notable in one, notable in all" - that would be reasonable if all Wikis had the same policies for notability, but that is not the case. Try adding all of the US porn stars to a WP with greatly different attitudes toward sexuality. I actually prefer that the wikis reflect the culture they support, although I realize that is tempered by the use of language as the determination. LaMona (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose culture can play a part on others, but the English Wikipedia doesn't really have that problem. We have quite well-established notability guidelines, and I don't feel that these should be subject to a cultural bias, and that companies of equivalent importance in English and non-English speaking countries should be treated any differently. Some may disagree. KaisaL (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should not be treated differently, and that means that they must meet the @en WP notability requirements based on sources if they are to be entered into @en WP. That is where we run into difficulty when sources cannot be found or are hard to evaluate. In fact, my intention (and hopefully my action) is to apply @en WP notability criteria here. Replies that "everyone in Romania knows this is an important company" wouldn't work for a US or UK source, and it shouldn't work here, either. If we really did say that "notable in one, notable in all" then we'd just have one big WP. Would it make sense to add all of the articles from @en WP to @ro WP? I bet that would look like cultural hegemony. The thing is that @en WP has become the "catch-all" that everyone wants to be in, and I think that is causing us both growing pains and decision pains. If Wikidata becomes strong, then we will have a unified index for all WPs and the need to "copy" articles from one to another will make less sense. That, of course, ignores the Google/SEO factor, which unfortunately we have no control over. LaMona (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (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.