Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarczyn (company)


 * 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   merge to Agros Nova. L Faraone  13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tarczyn (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence of notability, either in the article or in other sources that I can find. Not a single reference is an independent reliable source, and only one reference actually exists and mentions Tarczyn. It is also largely promotional in character. The article was given a speedy deletion tag, which was repeatedly removed by the creator of the article and an account now blocked as a sockpuppet of the creator. The administrator who eventually declined the speedy deletion (Amatulic) expressed the opinion on the article's talk page that, although it did not qualify for an A7 speedy deletion, it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The article was deleted via PROD, and has now been restored following a belated contesting of the PROD.

The references are as follows: (1) a page on the web site of Agros Nova. This page does not mention Tarczyn, and even if it did, it would not be an independent source, as Agros Nova owns Tarczyn; (2) a dead link, which in any case was not a reliable source, as it was a FaceBook page; (3) another dead link, this time at the web site of Agros Nova; (4) the one and only reference which actually mentions Tarczyn, again on the web site of Agros Nova. Searching for just Tarczyn produces loads of hits for the town of that name, but not for the company. I tried various more specific searches, such as Tarczyn "Agros Nova", Mazovia Tarczyn, Vetruillo Tarczyn, Tarczyn bicycle. The results I found either were again about the town, or were not independent reliable sources (e.g. there were various business promotion sites).

In the course of using Google translations to check sources, I discovered that substantial parts of the article were verbatim or almost verbatim copies of Google translations of content on Agros Nova's web site, and therefore copyright infringements. Some of this copyright infringement is from the one reference which actually mentions Tarczyn, which raises the possibility that more of the article may have been copied from the other references which are now dead links. If it were definitely known that that is so, the article would qualify for speedy deletion (criterion G12).

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the creator of this article has a history of creating articles that have been promotional, or copyright infringements, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Agros Nova. Contrary to the article's title, Tarczyn is not a company, it's just one of Agros Nova's brands. Before merging, the content should be pruned of copyright infrigements and promotional material (it may be that there will be nothing left). — Kpalion(talk) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a company before being acquired by Agros Holding in 1990 (a time when many state and cooperatively owned businesses were being snapped up for grosze) so the title is perfectly valid, whether for an article or a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge seems reasonable, I am not seeing that many sources, and what I find has weak reliability (ex. ). Merging to a parent article seems reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are at least two problems with the suggestion of merging. Firstly, Kpalion says that, once promotion and copyvio have been removed, "it may be that there will be nothing left", and I think that is true. In fact, my impression is that the whole article, or nearly the whole of it, is most probably copyright infringement, in which case the article's history should go. Secondly, there are, as I have explained, no reliable sources for any of the content, and no sources at all (reliable or not) for most of it. It would not be helpful to merge such unsourced content, and if it is merged then it will be liable to be removed again. Tarczyn is already briefly mentioned in Agros Nova, and if anyone can find anything more about Tarczyn to add to that article that has reliable independent sourcing, then it can be added directly, without reference to the article Tarczyn (company). If, on the other hand, nobody can find such sources, then it would be quite wrong to copy unsourced or unreliably sourced content from one article to another. Either way, merging would not be a good option. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * merge. That does not necessarily mean to merge the whole content. The company's web site is reliable enough for the necessary content to be added to the main article.    DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - given the problems with the references and copyvio issues, merging does not seem like an appropriate action. Redirect, and iimprove the material at the parent company article with proper sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (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.